Re: Subversion developer: svn is for dumb people

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:25:36PM +0000, Steven Grimm wrote:
> > > Thought folks here might get a kick out of this:
> > > 
> > > http://blog.red-bean.com/sussman/?p=79
> > > 
> > > Okay, my summary is slightly facetious, but that's basically the gist 
> > > of what he's saying: you should choose Subversion rather than a DVCS 
> > > because most of your users won't be smart enough to use the better 
> > > tool.
> > > 
> > > I can't say he's completely wrong, especially about the 20/80% idea 
> > > (though I think "20%" is generous), but some of his specific arguments 
> > > about DVCS are on the bogus side. "Centralized systems encourage code 
> > > reviews," for one -- I challenge him to find a project with a more 
> > > pervasive and effective code-reviewing culture than the git project.
> > 
> >   Your argument is also bogus.
> > 
> >   IMNSHO, peer reviewing has nothing to do with git, svn, or $SCM. It's 
> > a social pattern. There are people that do it because they understand 
> > it's a good and necessary sound thing to do, and there are the others. 
> > Guess what, it has a lot to do with the 20%/80% line (that I would have 
> > more described as the 2/98 but well…).
> 
> I tend to disagree.  Git at least _enables_ you to have the 
> one-committer-per-repository scheme, it even _encourages_ it to a certain 
> extent.
> 
> And once you go that route, it is easy to see that the committer says "I 
> will not let that _crap_ enter my repository."  Bingo, peer review.
> 
> Compare that to a centralised repository, where more often than not, the 
> administrator is not even part of the developer community!  It is much 
> easier not to feel too responsible for the code you are committing there.