Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:27:38PM -0500 I heard the voice of
> Andrew Dunstan, and lo! it spake thus:
>
>> This decision really belongs to the handful of people who do most of
>> the maintenance and live with most of any CVS pain that exists: such
>> as Tom, Bruce, Peter, Neil, Alvaro. Othe people have a right to
>> voice an opinion, but nobody should be pushing on it.
>>
>
> One thing that the DVCS crowd pushes is that that's _not_ the whole
> story. With CVS (or other centralized systems), the VCS is a
> development tool for the few core people, and a glorified
> FTP/snapshotting system for everyone else. With a DVCS, _everybody_
> gets a development tool out of it.
>
>
>
I don't really drink this koolaid, at least not to the extent of
disavowing what I said above. There might well be good reasons for using
a distributed SCM system, and if you look elsewhere in this thread
you'll see me eyeing Mercurial, which is one such, quite favorably, and
stating quite definitely that I hope we don't move to Subversion, which
would be the main centralised alternative. But no matter what system is
used, there will be a smallish number who will maintain the branches
that bear our name, and I still think they are the people with the
principal responsibility in the matter. I'm more interested in making
things as easy as possible for Tom and Bruce than I am for anyone else.
cheers
andrew
