On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:27:40PM +0000, Robert Goldman wrote: > FWIW, my feelings are the exact opposite of Matt's --- I find the added > complexity of having multiple repositories to manage and the general added > complexity of git quite unwelcome. > > If you are trying to keep multiple machines in sync, I find that a centralized > repository scheme is far simpler: all you need to do is manage the > relationship > between your working copies and the repository, and that relationship is a > very > simple one.
This centralized model is also entirely possible with git. > If you have a distributed revision control system and multiple different > repositories, you must manage the relationship between the different > repositories and the relationship between those repositories and your working > copies. Because of the peer-to-peer aspect, this is a complex quadratic mesh > of > relationships to manage, instead of the simple linear relationship you have > with > a centralized repository. It's not quadratic - it's still linear because it's quite unnecessary to have every repository interacting with every other. > I would say that if (1) you generally are connected to the internet, with only > minor intervals offline and (2) have access to a hosted svn repository (so you > don't manage it yourself, and so that you can use the simple https protocol > instead of fussing with ssh tunneling), then you are likely to find svn much > simpler. I am fortunate that both of these hold for me. I disagree - I think using git with a centralized model provides the best of both worlds: simplicity but also all the nice benefits of decentralization such as offline commit and history access, intelligent merging etc. Lots of people do it this way, e.g. http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/2008/12/setting-up-centralied-git-repository.html _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode