On 15/05/18 12:53, Erik Christiansen via luv-main wrote:
Ah, I had at one stage thought of modernising from CVS to > Subversion, but after decades of using CVS to automatically merge >
concurrent edits from multiple sources, I'm disappointed to hear that >
Subversion is a regression in capability.
I certainly wouldn't say that. I moved from RCS to CVS to Subversion to
git and I found Subversion more capable than CVS in every respect.
Without more experience with Git than a couple of check-outs for a > local compile, I'd still surmise that it is not a lot more >
distributed than CVS if you can't "push/pull from anywhere to >
anywhere". (Except that I'd have expected that a push ought to be to >
everywhere, given my mental model of a development trunk (maybe > called
"main") with local development on a branch, which may be > merged back
into the trunk at some stage.) And given that one shared > copy of the
head of the trunk is an essential resource of a VCS, then > it doesn't
seem to matter functionally whether that is a networked > central copy
or distributed copies forced to be identical.
But the distributed copies aren't forced to be identical; that's one of
the key features of git.
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Working-with-Remotes
The issue that Russell encountered is that git can also operate
centralised servers in addition to distributed repositories, but you
can't do both things with a single repository. A normal repository can
share with others, but not be a centralised server; a centralised server
can't also be used as a local repository. But you can use any number of
both in any project.
Hope that helps,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
