4 ms·
(Author here) To be clear, in real life, I do not actually like Subversion. I use Mercurial pretty exclusively for my own stuff, and would indeed use some of
by gecko 12y ago
(Author here)
To be clear, in real life, I do not actually like Subversion. I use Mercurial pretty exclusively for my own stuff, and would indeed use some of the centralized Mercurial extensions I linked in the article (e.g., remotefilelog, narrowhg, etc.) to scale upward if I had really big stuff flying around. The article is more about pointing out that going to a DVCS involves trade-offs, acknowledging that we have a lot of tooling designed to fake out those trade-offs, and discourage thinking of DVCS as a strict upgrade rather than an engineering decision with implications and costs and benefits.
- chaz72 12y agoOh, no doubt Subversion has its downsides and Mercurial is really good at what it does. I was just musing through my own tradeoffs. It is a very narrow point but one that I hope is in the spirit of the article. Partial repo checkouts, SVN externals are the two areas where I feel I lost something when "upgrading" to Git. So yes, I quite agree, there are definitely tradeoffs.