From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: Subversion developer: svn is for dumb people Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:40:59 +1300 Message-ID: <4717E0FB.1060705@vilain.net> References: <47176CE0.7030609@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'git' To: Steven Grimm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 19 00:41:23 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iie3M-00083Y-Hg for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:41:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751334AbXJRWlJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:41:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751768AbXJRWlI (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:41:08 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:43847 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751097AbXJRWlG (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:41:06 -0400 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 361BA21CFE8; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:41:05 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.2.22] (leibniz.catalyst.net.nz [202.78.240.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACE621CFDB; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:41:01 +1300 (NZDT) User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070606) In-Reply-To: <47176CE0.7030609@midwinter.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steven Grimm wrote: > some of his specific arguments > about DVCS are on the bogus side. "Centralized systems encourage code > reviews," for one -- I heard this from the core Subversion team too. The hypothesis is that by forcing groups to be unable to proceed without continually rebasing to each other's work, that collaboration is enhanced. I think any argument which states that a restrictive system is better than a non-restrictive system, when the non-restrictive system can be used in the same way as the restrictive system (either with configuration, or agreement with the committers) is quite bizarre. Sam.