[ILUG] Distributed versus Centralised SCM.
typedef at eircom.net
Sat Mar 12 11:37:30 GMT 2005
Dave O Connor wrote:
> With the distributed model, the central repository is still there, but
> project A is able to have its own SCM node, and changes to that (in
> our example) should not very much coincide with project B. These days,
> it's easy enough to auto-integrate changes into another branch, so
> integrating changes for the node for project A into the central
> repository shouldn't require human intervention (apart from
> unresolvable conflicts, which in theory shouldn't happen, since teams
> should have effective communication on changes to things that
Hmm, I still don't really get that. Developer-A has his copy of
project-A, as does Developer-B...
When it comes time to do a release build on "Central box" wouldn't
someone _me_ have to go to that box and integrated Developer-A's tree
with Developer-B's tree ?
If so, distributed SCM seems like a real pain ... if not... then how
exactly are the two trees in this case kept in sync ?
say a project has a.c b.c c.c d.c e.c f.c
I change a.c, b.c and f.c, add g.c, which f.c now depends on.
Another guy changes c.c e.c and f.c
Then we want to do a _release_ build.... how is the potential conflict
in f.c resolved ? How do the two developers have visibility to the
changes in each other's repositories and ... would it not be the case
that "Central box" would have to manually synchronise between the two
developers... and _fix_ the breakage in f.c ?
I can't imagine that's how it works... since that's an extremely broken
design... but, that's how the implied structure of this distributed
model seems to work.
Perhaps you/someone could elaborate on this point a little bit ?
More information about the ILUG