On 25.07.2008, at 12:41, Scott MacVicar wrote:
On 25 Jul 2008, at 10:58, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 25.07.2008, at 11:46, Marcus Boerger wrote:
I mean that if several people work on a changeset, that they still
might want to have a join central repo. Of course dvcs allows
direct
exchange of patches as well, but it might still be a good idea to
have
this central dvcs repo for historical reasons (lets say some
stuff is
attempted, it is then abandonded and then picked up by someone
else).
Also in terms of standardization I mean that even core developers
can
get overwhelmed if they end up having to use git here, and hg
there.
Then again we are still far away from having that many different
subprojects that need dvcs.
I still cannot follow you. Do you even know about these tools?
I have not used any of them enough in practice to really know them
well.
If two parties use git or hg they are all fine. And everyone else
is fine
too because they don' t have to learn dcms (btw, it's a
distributed cms
as in code/configuraqtion management system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_management_system). Anyway you
don't want
to teach for example our documentation group to use git or hg.
Besides the
fact thaqt there is no windows support for git they do not have the
slightest use whatsoever for local branching. Though of course
anyone who
is can safely start it's own perfectly working local one.
The point is:
- re2c experimental work used git
We used svn, we converted the 5.3 branch to svn and then did an
export at the end and merged back to CVS.
Ah ok .. the point was just to provide an example that if its a free
for all on what dvcs to use, it can make things harder for people that
join/examine different experimental branches :)
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
