4 ms·
Something's still not clear about his assumptions in that talk. He says "you just continue to work" and "you could do everything you would do" [if you were conn
by read 12y ago
Something's still not clear about his assumptions in that talk. He says "you just continue to work" and "you could do everything you would do" [if you were connected online]. But this is not true when it comes to integration of source control with issue-tracking.
If you integrate source control with issue-tracking, you start to want source code changes to correspond to issue numbers, and changes to be pushed if an issue is in a certain state or owned by a specific developer. But you can't get this information when you are offline without access to the issue-tracker.
Either there's a case for distributed issue-tracking too, which would give you that information, or issue-tracking being centralized pushes back on source control wanting to be distributed.
I wish this was addressed in Git's assumptions.
- modeless 12y agoSounds like you want https://www.fossil-scm.org https://www.fossil-scm.org. Distributed version control with integrated wiki and bug tracking, from the creator of SQLite.
- selectnull 12y agoAnother option is Veracity by Sourcegear. http://veracity-scm.com/ http://veracity-scm.com/
- hrjet 12y agoTheir DVCS comparison page is very informative: http://veracity-scm.com/compare/ http://veracity-scm.com/compare/
- ithkuil 12y agohttps://github.com/schacon/ticgit/wiki https://github.com/schacon/ticgit/wiki YMMV
- mtdewcmu 12y agoI've been mulling over issue tracking lately, since I hate Jira and all the other ones I've used. Wouldn't issues being in states and having owners violate the distributed model? Version control used to have file owners and locks, which is the same thing, and git broke from that.