GIT vs. CVS vs. SVN

[blu-Z8efaSeK1ezqlBn2x/YWAg at public.gmane.org (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: greg.rundlett-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org [mailto:greg.rundlett-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org] On Behalf
> Of Greg Rundlett (freephile)
> 
> All computers need backup.? The fact that users can clone a git repo from
disk
> to disk is a workalike for rsync.? Git is a better choice for vcs than CVS
or svn
> because its more capable and performant... it's not about centralized v.
> Decentralized because git can do both.

Even if you have a location where people can "centralize" sync up their git
repos, it's still decentralized.  You're just imitating the presence of a
person's end point in some well known location.  The significance of that
distinction may not be immediately obvious, but it's significant in some
cases.  This architecture is mutually exclusive with the ability to support
locking, which is necessary if you have a significant amount of unmergeable
files under source control.

You can't conclude that one is simply (religiously) better than the other.
It's an architectural decision, which has pros and cons in each direction.