Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote on 01/06/2010 10:16:55 AM:
> Greg Hudson wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 11:31 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > > "To be a compelling replacement for git/Mercurial", perhaps? > > > > That seems tough. > > Heh. A vision that's simple to attain is hardly a vision. I personally think focusing in on an existing DVCS target would be a poor "vision". Subversion has grown out of the replacement tool phase and should be thinking more towards leading. The question isn't what should Subversion do that git/mercurial already do, but what are the users trying to do that DVCS is currently solving better than Subversion? Just being distributed isn't necessarily better. In fact, it creates all sorts of problems for enterprises such as backups, fine grained security, etc. Kevin R.
