Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>       With CVS
>     committers are encouraged to avoid committing local changes,
>     until a future moment when ``the patch will be done and fully
>     working''.  When they reach that future point, the onus of the
>     merging falls on the person who wants to commit.
>
>     With a distributed SCM system, committing is not so `scary'.
>     It's ok to commit often, and commit short changes.  They are
>     local.  They won't break the remote tree for anyone else.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to compare these two different "commit"
> operations -- it's like comparing an apple to an orange tree branch.
> If you compare applies with oranges instead, the difference is
> much less.

I think that the comparison is quite accurate: the commit does
everything that a commit in CVS does.  The difference in workflow is not
in committing, it is in the fact that everybody has his own repository
(and all of them are equal).  The difference is that cooperation works
by synchronizing repositories (which does not even need a checked-out
work directory), not by committing to a central repository.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum