Well this goes much too far, so this will be my last reply as this is going to be as off-topic as I can think of :)
----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- Von: Grant Edwards Gesendet am: 29 Sep 2009 19:16:18 On 2009-09-29, JMGross <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's what I meant with a 'mesh cloud'. It still needs to be >> stored somewhere. On a single place (that is hopefully >> available) or on every single system in a copy, constantly >> updating with the others (who are hopefully online and have a >> recent version available). >Except that's not how a distributed control system works. It's >not the case where there are mutliple mirrored copies of a >single repository. SVN uses a single repository on a single >server, and there is no mechanism to allow the repository >stored in multiple places. No, everybody has a piece of the repository, or not, and you must be lucky to have at least someone online who has the piece you need. You cannot ever be sure that you'll get the latest revision (the two people with the latest are just offline) and you'll never notice. It works better with an increasing base of users but there remains a statistical uncertainity. The main problem is the same: if the information is not available, it is not available. With a dedicated server, no information or all is available, on a distributed system more or less is available (from nothing to all) and you'll never really know how much, unless there is again a central point where at least the metainformation is gathered. >> If it's not stored somewhere, it is not available, no matter >> which type of distribution is used. In my opinion, a dedicated >> server (with some backups) is by far better than a repository >> that is or is not available and is or is not up to date. >I don't think you understand how distributed version control >systems work. It's not the same as having "a repository" >that's stored in the cloud. There are several different approaches. From a distributed repository (similar to the torrent DHC mechanism) to a emule-like search in the cloud for the latest changes (with the same uncertainity). I admittedly don't know how GIT or Bazaar exactly work, but as someone very clever once noticed: you cannot put more than a bit into a bit. And even the mentioned wikipedia article (which does not tell much about the concepts) has in the 'disadvantages' section some points which are of big importance (even if desperately hidden between many 'companies fear' and other pseudo-disadvantages) >> The fact that TortoiseSVN (and I guesst SVN itself does so >> too) keeps a working base together with the (actually altered) >> working copy makes it a somewhat distributed repository too, >Yup, that's how SVN works. You can do a diff/revert using just >the local copy but most all of the other operations still >require a live connection to the server. DVCS systems don't. So you want to tell me that I can revert to a previous version or compare two random versions of a file without either having all the history stored locally or a network connection? Well, fine piece of Magic. Information out of nowhere. If this is possible, I wonder why there are still programmers needed? It's all there, out of the void. Each time, someone tells me he has developed a perpetuum mobile, a motor that requires less energy input as it outputs, or that he has pulled himself out of a swamp by its own hairs, I feel a strong urge do disbelief him. So unless someone can tell me how this shall work (and not just that it works and I have to believe it), all types of DVCS I can imagine have as many drawbacks as they might have advantages. >> Unfortunately there is no Linux version of Tortoise (only for >> SVN itself), but since both are compatible and linux users (at >> least the programmers) are usually fond of console usage... :) >Tortoise doesn't really have anything to do with how SVN works, And was just mentioned as an example of ease of use. I already stated that it is linked together with SVN and of course is the repository job done by SVN. But it makes version control as easy as right-clicking the mouse in the windows explorer (or any other app that uses the explorer view) > There are plenty of other GUI interfaces to SVN, but > there are still fundamental differences in the way than a > single-reposity system works and the way that a distributed > system works. I never questioned that. But I questioned that a DVCS system MUST be better than SVN (or other server-based systems like Perforce, which I also used many years ago or CVS which I refused to use even more years ago) just because it is a newer technology or more cool or whatever. Both may have their strengths and both definitely have their drawbacks. It depends on what you want to do with it and what features you need and what drawbacks you cannot afford. JMGross
