Re: [tlug] Re: Call for presenters - March 14th technical meeting

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2009-02-20 13:38 +0900 (Fri), John Fremlin wrote:

> Edward Middleton wrote:
>> Subversion was just an incremental improvement on RCS->CVS but probably
>> still the best for a purely centralized repository approach.
>
> I'd strongly support a talk that debunked this myth.

What, debunked the myth that subversion is "still the best for a purely
centralized repository approach?" What's better?

Or is it some alleged myth such as, "centralized VCSs are always better
than distributed"? I've not heard that one in any serious discussion,
though I have heard the other way around, which is rubbish IMHO.

While of course either can be used either way, I've noticed a strong
preference for projects using distributed VCSs to do centralized
merging, whereas projects using centralized VCSs have a possibly even
stronger preference do distributed merging. So I'm not even sure the
labels are accurate.

There are obvious examples: in Linux (distributed VCS) all of the
(official) kernel changes go through one or a few people, whereas
in NetBSD (centralized VCS) there are several dozens of people who
regularly commit to various areas of the kernel.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974
           Functional programming in all senses of the word:
                   http://www.starling-software.com