On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 22:18, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. The point is that a dvcs has drawbacks. The distributed nature > requires a very strict management of repository structure and for the > changeset flow. Hm. It is true that DCVS _allow_ various policies and workflows unavailable to centralized ones, but I do not see how such policies are required. While, as I said, I do not advocate moving Lazarus to DCVS at this time, I think your notion of DCVS complexity is exaggerated.
Let us see if I can help it ;-) > Which repository is used the create the releases? The one currently agreed on by the developers -- just as with SVN. > Who merges to this repository and when? Those who have access to it -- similar to commit access with SVN. (Or even only one person, as is the case with Linux -- but this is the extreme decentralization, there is no need to go this far). > What if somebody never pushes his changes and keeps them local till his > harddisk breaks? His changes do not get into the release -- same as if he would make changes to his working copy in SVN and not commit / send patches out. Notice the very important difference here: while in SVN these changes are "hidden" and not available to other users/developers, DVCS allow others to use/test/review/build upon changes even before they hit the central repository. Another DCVS advantage is that the local changes need not be lumped together into a single commit, which is very important for large changes. > How does testing work? As usual, somebody runs tests and checks the results. >When are tests run? At every commit? Every push? That, or at every pull/fetch, or periodically -- there is no difference in centralized vs distributed VCS here. -- Alexander S. Klenin Insight Experts Ltd. _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus