SVN is centralized. Most others are decentralized. Which is better?
This debate started because of a change in the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel ihas a very decentrlized development model and naturally needed a decentralized repository. But what about Asterisk?
A nice http://lwn.net/Articles/72580/ quote
from a http://lwn.net/Articles/72498/ discussiionon LWN
that followed Subversion 1.0:
> "The most important thing to be aware of though is that Arch and Subversion
> differ in fundamental ways. Arch works in a decentralized way, while Subversion
> is designed on a client/server model. Indeed with Arch you can start coding and using
> version control without first applying for access to the server. However, merging your
> code with the main branch has to be done by the one project maintainer....
> Development with Subversion (and CVS for that matter) is centralized in the sense
> that there is just one repository, but it is actually more decentralized in a social sense
> since there are as many code integrators as there are developers with write access to
> the repository.
> In short, one could say that Arch is centralized around a code integrator, and that
> Subversion (like CVS) is centralized around a repository. You decide what fits best. If
> you are a heavy user of CVS... chances are that Subversion actually fits your needs
What say you?