From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...>
Date: 2008-03-28T00:27:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Why git instead of mercurial?

On 27/03/2008, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>
>  >  * having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby
>
> Sorry to be bold for once Matz, but this sentence surprises me a lot,
>  why is a single point of failure a good thing?

You can make as many backups as you like, there's nothing stopping you.

>  What I like most about Mercurial (and distributed VCS in general) to
>  have my repository on 4 different PCs and 3 pendrives, while top is
>  not on all seven it is almost impossible to really lose data.

The single central repository is a workflow pattern - the address
which you officially publish and from which people check out the
sources.

While CVS or SVN enforce this pattern distributed VCSs do not.

Thanks

Michal