Mark Hammond <skippy.hammond at gmail.com> writes: > As already mentioned in this thread, a capability similar to what svn > or cvs offers would be sufficient. That capability presented by centralised VCSen is entirely dependent on the fact that they *are* centralised. Using a distributed VCS means the same capability doesn't apply. > While a DVCS does offer unique challenges, it seems to me that doing > something at commit time without requiring magic hooks be configured > would go a long way to addressing the problem. The hand-waving “doing something” is exactly what needs to be solved. > Magic hooks on the official repo would then be considered the final > fallback defense, but should rarely be invoked. Right, so that's “capability similar to centralised VCS” out of consideration; I'm glad we agree in the end. > I'm not sure what point you are trying to make That I disagree with your position. You seem to think that the problem has an obvious solution, which is not true; and that choice of a distributed VCS should be delayed until the problem is solved, which I don't agree with. > but I believe it *is* possible for a solution to be found here which > will keep Windows users happy. I'm guessing you haven't had much > practical experience with this problem, so probably don't see this is > clearly as Windows users do. Your guess is incorrect; I've been bitten time and again by this problem in many different contexts, enough to know that it's not obvious what the “right” solution is. -- \ “Not to perambulate the corridors in the hours of repose in the | `\ boots of ascension.” —ski hotel, Austria | _o__) | Ben Finney
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4