New VCS Choice; SCM SIG

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Kristian Høgsberg <krh at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:57 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 08:25 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >>>> On Tuesday 23 January 2007 01:44, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > My point was that git certainly isn't the exotic curiosity you try to paint it
> > as.  It's way beyond critical mass and I'd wager at least as stable as CVS at
> > this point.  Another point is that these projects likely care more about VCS
> > than your average sourceforge project does, and as such have made much more
> > informed decisions about this than the many projects out there that have just
> > gone with the default lowest common denominator.
> 
> 
> I think in general the idea has been distributed SCM vs
> non-distributed SCM.  Some of us have been looking at git and hg on
> the distributed side and IIRC, the general consensus is that git is
> just very unpolished at this point.

Git and hg can both be used in a non-distributed fashion.  It's not one
or the other with those, whereas CVS and SVN are centralized only.  Just
another point to keep clear.

I have no problems with git, but the learning curve can be steep.  Which
is why anything should be wrappered with the makefile targets as it is
today.  (e.g. make tag)

josh