Wow, you're really not willing to concede a single point, ever, are you?

I'll respond to your specific points below.  However, look at what you've done below... you nitpick specific points while trimming out the part of my text that makes my main point: that Monticello is very much like other distributed SCMs, and that nobody else uses any distributed SCM in the way that you propose with Sake/Packages.  In particular, the Linux kernel source tree is not built automatically by a script that draws patches from a variety of repositories; I'm not aware of any other source tree that is, either.

This very typical of the way that you argue.  I'm not sure if you have self-concsciousness of it.  My hope is that you don't, and that there's a chance that I can help you gain it.  If you're doing it intentionally, then please let me know, and I'll stop wasting my time.



On Jan 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, keith wrote:

>> 
>> No, we already have a distributed SCM.  It's called Monticello, and it works EXACTLY like git, mercurial, and bazaar.  You are proposing something else.
> 
> CVS is a distributed SCM, when you check in you have to be online to do it.

(in the following, I'll use Version Control System, or VCS as a synonym for SCM... most people use this term now because they're used to store more than source code)

I have never, ever seen CVS described as a distributed VCS before.  In any introduction to the benefits of distributed VCSes compared to centralized ones, CVS and Subversion are typically used as the canonical examples of centralized VCSes.  If we're going to have a discussion, it will be helpful if we agree on the meanings of the words that we use.  Maybe this will help:

http://www.infoq.com/articles/dvcs-guide


> With Monticello, when you check in you have to be online to do it. Monticello does not work like mercurial or bzr, unless you set up a local repository.


There is a local repository by default... all versions that I download are automatically put into a local "package-cache" repository.  Furthermore, it is trivially easy to set up a separate local repository.  I just set one up right now... it literally took 25 seconds.


> Or apparently Gofer allows you to move resources locally if you want to. MC1.5 has a copy all function as well.
> 
> Mercurial, and Bzr, dont use centralized servers, so when you check out you get the entire tree and history, for yourself, so you can work on the train.


I do the same with Monticello (with the inconsequential difference that I don't have the whole history... this is very seldom a problem in practice).  


> When you have finished your work on the train you can push back to the centralised repository if you want to.


Yes, this is exactly what I do on the train with Monticello.  It's simple to commit to a local repository, and then copy the packages to the server when I get to the office.

Cheers,
Josh




> 
> Keith
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100123/70917887/attachment.htm