> Create local copy of trunk, make changes, ... fuck up, undo last local commit ... wait - can't do this in SVN!
> run tests, create > patch, > send patch. patch gets applied to trunk, used does update on local > copy, > like everyone else and they all now get the patch. I don't see why > history > is a problem for the _trunk_ using people. Sure, if you create branches > with > code obtained from others OUTSIDE the trunk, then it's problematic, but > NH > is always developed on the trunk, so that's not really a problem IMHO. What if you're maintaining your own branch with your own modifications? What if you want to backport one single bugfix that's just so important to you to a stable release? DVCS makes all of that so much easier. > My post wasn't about whether DVCS is capable of doing things :) > it > was about who's code reviewing code which is checked in as patches can > be > pulled off-trunk more easily than it is done now. I guess that question has been answered already... > It however ended up > in a > debate whether dvcs is better or not. Who gives a ****, really. The > real > pain is in writing the complex code to fix the harder problems, not > whether > some scm is capable of easy merging or creating a patch. For a few lines of code, agreed. If a patch takes a while to write and/or involves several people, SVN just fails to deliver the most basic SCM functionality. You'd need to create a branch, assign rights... and still merging would suck (affects applying the patch after other updates or porting it to another branch). DVCS lets me just keep things in sync. In the context of NH, I still fail to see the problems that would be specific to DVCS.
