[CMake] Re: Migration to subversion

[Brandon Van Every]

On Jan 4, 2008 3:50 PM, Alan W. Irwin <irwin at beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote:
> On 2008-01-04 07:17-0800 E. Wing wrote:
>
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> > Distributed [version control system] is the right way to go in my opinion.
>
> I don't completely agree.  Centralized repositories have proved useful for
> lots of software development projects (e.g., the 160,000+ free software
> projects at SourceForge).  Of course, centralized repos don't work very well
> if projects (such as the Linux kernel) have huge numbers of active
> developers, but most software projects (such as CMake) will never have more
> than a handful of active developers, and for such projects a centralized
> repository makes a lot of sense.

Why?  Other than it's what you're used to.  When I was doing Chicken
Scheme, we had very few people banging on the Darcs source repository,
but nevertheless it was useful to our work.  Typically we could just
work past each other and not worry about merges.

> Thus, it is probably a given that CMake
> will always use a centralized repository.

You haven't even begun to prove a "thus."  What is so important about
being centralized?


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every