This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am a bit confused, why does this kind of thing have label of "distributed". According /info/en/?search=Distributed_computing definition, it means that more than single computer is cooperating on single operation. This does not apply to "Distributed version control". I would personally call it "Decentralized version control". Where is origin of "Distributed" come from? PS: As not native speaker I am not sure about etymology of given word. This can perhaps help too.
Can someone add a few sentences about this discrepancy to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.248.121 ( talk) 09:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"to work on a given project without requiring that they maintain a connection to a common network." This doesn't make any sense. What is a "common network" entailing? How does one work on a "given project" without requiring that they "maintain a connection to a common network." make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.96 ( talk) 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I just tagged this article for cleanup, but sourcing is another issue. Please don't be offended if you have been working on this article. I have put the tag up for the following reasons:
If someone could provide some sourced from which this article is built, I'll be happy to help out improving it. Martijn Hoekstra 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose Distributed revision control & revision control#Distributed revision control should be merged in one way or another.-- Grimboy ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
A diagram of some kind illustrating the differences between centralized and distributed VC would help a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 ( talk) 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Exactly! -- 62.153.161.241 ( talk) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says that "The first DVCS is Reliable Software's Code Co-op (1997)". However, I've just run across an academic paper describing one earlier than that: 'O'Donovan, B.; Grimson, J.B., "A distributed version control system for wide area networks," Software Engineering Journal , vol.5, no.5, pp.255-262, Sep 1990'. It was implemented over UUCP (!) although to be fair, they say they wrapped UUCP calls in an abstraction layer so it could be replaced. Should this be added to the history section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajb ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I started using
Sun Microsystems
TeamWare around 1990 or 1991 while working for
Cray Research on their
CS6400 computer which ran Solaris 2. Our team ported Solaris 2 to the
CS6400 and used
TeamWare because that is what
Sun used for the OS Networking source base.
TeamWare was a full DVCS even back then. I'm not sure how long
Sun had been using it before then. Does anyone here know how to contact
Larry McVoy (who designed
TeamWare and
BitKeeper)? He would probably have much more detailed knowledge of the history of DVCS. In any case, it was a long time before 1997.
Billdav ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
First generation open-source DVCSes include Arch and Monotone. The second generation was prompted by the arrival of Darcs,
It is not clear, in which sense the DVCSes are names first and second generation. There are no other mentions on the page. Also, from brief search it seems to me that Arch origined in 2001, Monotone in 2003, Darcs in 2002.
Dendik ( talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
hi guys,
might locking be a feature people used to svn might miss in dvcs. i see no way of having lock-modify-commit in dvcs but arts people only want it this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.143.104.254 ( talk) 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The "disadvantages" section contains a couple of myths about DVCS that aren't actually true. They aren't harder to use, on the contrary their key selling point is that they make the hard things (branching and merging) very easy. Also, cloning a git or hg repository isn't much slower in practice than a Subversion checkout. Maybe by a factor of two or so at most, but no more, and besides, it's only the kind of thing you do occasionally so it's pretty much a non-issue. 194.60.38.198 ( talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
firstly, thanks to EasyTarget for explaining to the user 194.60.38.198 what Paul Pogonyshev meant. Hehe.
I also disagree to a merge. the revision control article really meets Wikipedia 'Standards'. i.e. its written with references (or source) thus, its more believable/factual. the DVC article is written without references and written in a 'rebellious' style.
Ofcourse DVCS are 100% legit.But this article is not.!
Also, the info. given in the main article(revision control...) about Distributed revision control systems is enough.
to user JamesBWatson- i think these are the reasons why "the merge has not taken place"
-------Rampuse 59.96.88.156 ( talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In my wording would be "Every working copy is effectively a fork." As a copy does not necessarily mean commits and commits are needed to talk of a branch. Branching happens whenever one revision has more than one successor. Changing that in the article ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.24.74 ( talk) 11:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Pull request redirects here but there's nothing in the article defining the term. Looks like a TODO. 2.101.108.194 ( talk) 11:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC) , pbhj
Yep - I second this - same thing just happened to me. Iamsorandom ( talk) 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Me too - now it's almost 2 years ... JB. -- 92.195.48.144 ( talk) 15:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The current explanation remains unclear. If "pull" means "import the code and incorporate the suggested changes", please explicitly say this. I would edit the section to say this myself but I am not sure that this is what is meant. -- Newagelink ( talk) 05:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Why name this article "Distributed revision control" instead of "Distributed Version Control"?
It is interesting to see that if you lookup that expression on Google, apart from this article and the Revision control article, the first page of results is mostly pages on DVCS, not DRC or DRCS.
On a more quantitative and objective note, Google Fight place DVC an order of magnitude higher than DRV (litterally: 9,960k against 979k at the time of writing). Nowhere man ( talk) 17:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
I'm hoping an expert could polish the prose on this article. Or perhaps suggest a merge with Revision control? Given the separate treatment of this topic, the current structure seems ripe for rethinking. — HipLibrarianship talk 01:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
SCCS was the first system that supported distributed version control and SCCS is the model for all other modern systems:
I hope it helps to check the past to understand the current situation. Schily ( talk) 10:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Distributed version control. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Distributed version control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
by Atlassian: to be included here? 95.130.167.71 ( talk) 12:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am a bit confused, why does this kind of thing have label of "distributed". According /info/en/?search=Distributed_computing definition, it means that more than single computer is cooperating on single operation. This does not apply to "Distributed version control". I would personally call it "Decentralized version control". Where is origin of "Distributed" come from? PS: As not native speaker I am not sure about etymology of given word. This can perhaps help too.
Can someone add a few sentences about this discrepancy to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.248.121 ( talk) 09:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"to work on a given project without requiring that they maintain a connection to a common network." This doesn't make any sense. What is a "common network" entailing? How does one work on a "given project" without requiring that they "maintain a connection to a common network." make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.96 ( talk) 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I just tagged this article for cleanup, but sourcing is another issue. Please don't be offended if you have been working on this article. I have put the tag up for the following reasons:
If someone could provide some sourced from which this article is built, I'll be happy to help out improving it. Martijn Hoekstra 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose Distributed revision control & revision control#Distributed revision control should be merged in one way or another.-- Grimboy ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
A diagram of some kind illustrating the differences between centralized and distributed VC would help a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 ( talk) 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Exactly! -- 62.153.161.241 ( talk) 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says that "The first DVCS is Reliable Software's Code Co-op (1997)". However, I've just run across an academic paper describing one earlier than that: 'O'Donovan, B.; Grimson, J.B., "A distributed version control system for wide area networks," Software Engineering Journal , vol.5, no.5, pp.255-262, Sep 1990'. It was implemented over UUCP (!) although to be fair, they say they wrapped UUCP calls in an abstraction layer so it could be replaced. Should this be added to the history section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajb ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I started using
Sun Microsystems
TeamWare around 1990 or 1991 while working for
Cray Research on their
CS6400 computer which ran Solaris 2. Our team ported Solaris 2 to the
CS6400 and used
TeamWare because that is what
Sun used for the OS Networking source base.
TeamWare was a full DVCS even back then. I'm not sure how long
Sun had been using it before then. Does anyone here know how to contact
Larry McVoy (who designed
TeamWare and
BitKeeper)? He would probably have much more detailed knowledge of the history of DVCS. In any case, it was a long time before 1997.
Billdav ( talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
First generation open-source DVCSes include Arch and Monotone. The second generation was prompted by the arrival of Darcs,
It is not clear, in which sense the DVCSes are names first and second generation. There are no other mentions on the page. Also, from brief search it seems to me that Arch origined in 2001, Monotone in 2003, Darcs in 2002.
Dendik ( talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
hi guys,
might locking be a feature people used to svn might miss in dvcs. i see no way of having lock-modify-commit in dvcs but arts people only want it this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.143.104.254 ( talk) 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The "disadvantages" section contains a couple of myths about DVCS that aren't actually true. They aren't harder to use, on the contrary their key selling point is that they make the hard things (branching and merging) very easy. Also, cloning a git or hg repository isn't much slower in practice than a Subversion checkout. Maybe by a factor of two or so at most, but no more, and besides, it's only the kind of thing you do occasionally so it's pretty much a non-issue. 194.60.38.198 ( talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
firstly, thanks to EasyTarget for explaining to the user 194.60.38.198 what Paul Pogonyshev meant. Hehe.
I also disagree to a merge. the revision control article really meets Wikipedia 'Standards'. i.e. its written with references (or source) thus, its more believable/factual. the DVC article is written without references and written in a 'rebellious' style.
Ofcourse DVCS are 100% legit.But this article is not.!
Also, the info. given in the main article(revision control...) about Distributed revision control systems is enough.
to user JamesBWatson- i think these are the reasons why "the merge has not taken place"
-------Rampuse 59.96.88.156 ( talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In my wording would be "Every working copy is effectively a fork." As a copy does not necessarily mean commits and commits are needed to talk of a branch. Branching happens whenever one revision has more than one successor. Changing that in the article ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.24.74 ( talk) 11:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Pull request redirects here but there's nothing in the article defining the term. Looks like a TODO. 2.101.108.194 ( talk) 11:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC) , pbhj
Yep - I second this - same thing just happened to me. Iamsorandom ( talk) 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Me too - now it's almost 2 years ... JB. -- 92.195.48.144 ( talk) 15:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The current explanation remains unclear. If "pull" means "import the code and incorporate the suggested changes", please explicitly say this. I would edit the section to say this myself but I am not sure that this is what is meant. -- Newagelink ( talk) 05:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Why name this article "Distributed revision control" instead of "Distributed Version Control"?
It is interesting to see that if you lookup that expression on Google, apart from this article and the Revision control article, the first page of results is mostly pages on DVCS, not DRC or DRCS.
On a more quantitative and objective note, Google Fight place DVC an order of magnitude higher than DRV (litterally: 9,960k against 979k at the time of writing). Nowhere man ( talk) 17:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
I'm hoping an expert could polish the prose on this article. Or perhaps suggest a merge with Revision control? Given the separate treatment of this topic, the current structure seems ripe for rethinking. — HipLibrarianship talk 01:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
SCCS was the first system that supported distributed version control and SCCS is the model for all other modern systems:
I hope it helps to check the past to understand the current situation. Schily ( talk) 10:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Distributed version control. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Distributed version control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
by Atlassian: to be included here? 95.130.167.71 ( talk) 12:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)