Source control for all dmd source (Git propaganda =)

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >and because it
>> >supports local branches (I didn't read about how branches are managed in
>> >Mercurial yet, but I understand that Mercurial doesn't support local
>> >branches).
>>       It does through the LocalBranch extension.
>
> Ok, lots of extensions! =O

This lots of extensions thing does make me nervous.  The idea of
making an SCM pluggable is nice in many ways, but the fact that these
things are not included means you're subject to version
incompatibilities and some plugins working on Unix but not Windows,
and maybe just plugins that aren't QA'ed very well, or plugins that
conflict with other plugins, or competing plugins that do very similar
things but don't work well together.

All this makes me really prefer to get all the key bits of my SCM from
one source.  Then, for instance, I know that that source will consider
it *their* problem if, say, the XYZ function doesn't work on Windows.
I.e. you're less likely to find yourself in a situation where core
devs say the XYZ plugin solves your problem so they won't fix it, but
XYZ doesn't work and the guys that made XYZ have disappeared or happen
not to care about your platform.

Does that make sense?  I feel pretty confident that all the commands
that come with git play nice with each other (or at least the ways in
which they don't are clearly documented).   I feel less so about a
loose confederation of plugins from various sources.

--bb