Timeline for We're Subversion Geeks and we want to know the benefits of Mercurial
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2011 at 19:15 | comment | added | Karl Bielefeldt | Good point @Mark. On such a small team, a lot of the normal conventions for larger teams go out the window. I still think it's worth it for speed reasons. | |
| Jun 27, 2011 at 17:09 | comment | added | Mark Booth | I think that this answer is missing the fact that the original poster is already coercing SVN to work in a way which is much closer to a DVCS workflow than most users of SVN would consider viable. In essence they already have the DVCS mindset so no fundamental shift in thinking is required. | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 21:21 | comment | added | Karl Bielefeldt | @Matt, then you're lucky as your business is more the exception than the rule. Most companies have very strict rules about creating branches on the limited resource of the central server, so people don't even think about creating them for temporary reasons. | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 19:42 | comment | added | Matt | "You have to ask yourself what you would do with as many branches as you want that are shared with whomever you want, and only them" ... "two people working on opposite sides of an interface? They need to share code with each other regularly, but it's not stable enough to share with everyone yet. They can create a branch to share among themselves, then merge it back into the central repository when it's ready." We have all of that now with subversion. | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 18:18 | comment | added | Pete | +1! Also, if you give mercurial a fair and thorough try, I'm certain you won't want to go back. | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 14:45 | history | answered | Karl Bielefeldt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |