From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2008-03-28T05:13:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Why git instead of mercurial?

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  In message "Re: Why git instead of mercurial?"
>
>     on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:21:50 +0900, "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  |>  * 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?
>
>  Unless we abandon central repository model, we need an authenticated
>  repository anyway.  And I didn't want to give up that clear and simple
>  model.
>
>                                                         matz.
>
>

To Matz and Michael
I guess it is just a completely different way to work, but I guess I
frequently do things differently so that should not alarm you :)
Just for your information Mercurial can use ssh authenticated
repositories so that would not be a problem at all.
I feel that sometimes people forget that a distributed CVS is also a
centralized one, just a matter of usage, right?

Cheers
Robert

-- 
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein