When working remotely, our team only has access to our source code by remote desktop into our office PCs so we never really work in offline mode. Does a distributed version control system like Mercurial or Git still give us advantages over our current centralized Subversion set up? If so, what are they? Are there any drawbacks or pitfalls? I’ve read in numerous places that shifting to distributed version control requires a change in thinking. Can someone explain what needs to change in this regard?
Share
I would recommend HgInit as a very thorough explanation of just how svn is improved upon by a decentralized toolset. It will also help you to understand the conceptual differences.
One of the big improvements I’d like to emphasize is the notion of merge tracking. Subversion didn’t have this feature at all until 1.5, and with the difference in the way it treats revisions and branches, it will probably never be as good as the decentralized tools can be. Nobody likes merges. Might as well reduce as much of that pain as you can. Also see: Why is branching and merging easier in Mercurial than in Subversion?.
The biggest change in thinking for me when making the switch from subversion was getting over the idea that history is strictly linear, and branching is nothing but copying code to another directory. Note that in Git and Mercurial, you don’t checkout a subdirectory of the repository. You won’t see ‘git checkout http://github.com/project/branches/v2.0‘ or anything. Eric Sink wrote a really good explanation of the difference in the way the history is stored. I recommend taking a look.