kmra...@rockwellcollins.com wrote: > 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.
Yes, I totally agree. I was thinking more like "be a solution for the users who are currently considering Git/Mercurial" rather than "try to do what Git/Mercurial does". - Julian
