From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bastien Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: dVCS vs. CVS Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: <87y7b36ojw.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199628110 16635 80.91.229.12 (6 Jan 2008 14:01:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:01:50 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 06 15:02:10 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JBW4n-0003i0-FA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:02:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBW4Q-00017R-GC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:01:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JBW4J-00016g-3F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:01:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JBW4G-00014G-RT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:01:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBW4F-00013g-NS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:01:36 -0500 Original-Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.232]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JBW4F-00038c-82 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:01:35 -0500 Original-Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 23so1074988huc.1 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:01:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:to:subject:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:sender; bh=0hTeE+mvyegc9M5d+bcRZU505pObmpI7/XvA6B+v+v4=; b=C3wMDeICMz00eKCl8Tp7EgVGtWXT6TftQifp/PsjVtANg+tnzJZxwLx0CGgt0k1UWGEDq+lWawr6INIV1CFD/VJk4UmBtXnhXD7yrnga57HyLw0ZiMUcUqKDsqxshiPe44wr1NecdsuP0ZoPwvMdQHpmWwO4g2d+CZLzd8WQ3tU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:sender; b=adV6CfQRJg7/3zppQ21J43rCFIB4aGDmu2OB+at8orvxyCf5Sg0Q50s8OYtB+ummr8l+9BrCaRx4qmNqTauE8BHUba//molp0J0Fr7PeuMKExTl0yYRvJdsZl7M2q9LloCVSP4yfPW1pNYDOJQDA8ydCP5ntgzrypvARHzPCCzM= Original-Received: by 10.78.201.15 with SMTP id y15mr21751818huf.38.1199628092804; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:01:32 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from bzg.ath.cx ( [81.157.28.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k5sm22657232nfd.23.2008.01.06.06.01.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:01:31 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by bzg.ath.cx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0B67E1575A7; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:01:23 +0000 (GMT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.0 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:86326 Archived-At: The comparison between CVS and dVCS is necessarily limited because it's hard to compared a decentralized system with a centralized one. But let me simply point out this obvious fact: with a dVCS, you can do whatever you would do with CVS -- and *more*. The risk of switching to a dVCS is not one of loosing functionnalities, but one of loosing those developers who don't want to learn a new tool (I don't think there are any here...?) Another point: it has been said in this thread that, in dVCS, "The 'current development version' is a social, not a technical concept." This is the most important fact about dVCS in general. But be aware that this might be misunderstood: it doesn't mean you lose control over which developpement version is to be considered the "official" one (by not technically defining it), it means that you make clear the official developpement version is so by a social convention (not de facto, via technical constraints.) Concretely, it means that people will work with the GNU dVCS repository (wherever this would live) *because* they know this is the official one, not because this is the only one. I think this way of defining the current developpement version fits perfectly with the role of conventions in Emacs development. -- Bastien