Re: Trellis future (forking)

On 2009-06-25, P.J. Eby <pje-Wh6+Hckhi6HFNGf7iClzIwC/[email protected]> wrote:
> At 12:29 PM 6/25/2009 +0300, Sergey Schetinin wrote:
>
> > I don't really mind DVCS's but Subversion served me so well all these
> > years that I just don't see a reason to move away from it. As they
> > say: if it's not broken -- don't fix it. Thanks for suggestions
> > anyway.
> >
>
>  Actually, I've found that there's an excellent reason to use DVCS: managing
> local changes to upstream software.  I learned the basics of Mercurial last
> weekend and found it to be a nice improvement over svn, at least for that
> use case.  There is even a built-in tool to pull updates from CVS, svn, and
> others into a Mercurial repository, and it handles merging MUCH better than
> svn.  I plan to migrate all my own company's private-branch projects to
> Mercurial for that reason.
>

Absolutely, if there's a good reason to switch to DVCS that's one. I
however find it difficult to restrict myself to changes any kind of
merge would handle. So it's either import-time / runtime
monkeypatching or all-out forks for me :)



-- 
Best Regards,
Sergey Schetinin

http://s3bk.com/ -- S3 Backup
http://word-to-html.com/ -- Word to HTML Converter