On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Circling back to the original point. Local commits for Subversion, > effectively transforming it to a DVCS or distributed version control > system, could be very cool. You really should head over to dev@ and provide your thoughts on the [RFC] Shelving and Checkpointing thread. Personally I think Subversion should stay Subversion and not become git. That is, it should stay centralized version control, because it is simple, effective, and comes with all the advantages described earlier in this thread. With the addition of these two local features, you could work "offline," construct a complex commit in multiple steps, use it as a local "undo/redo," and use it as an alternative to short-lived bug fix or feature branches. While git-svn already makes this and much more possible, advantages to staying within Subversion include: easier learning curve, simplicity, and a more coherent solution.
