Distributed Version Control “killer applications”?

The one true actual killer feature is... merging DVCS (Git, Mercurial or other) are made for merging (precisely because, being distributed, merging is the key feature allowing those tools to quickly integrate code coming from various remote repositories). SVN isn't up to the task (even today). See: What makes merging in DVCS easy Why is branching and merging easier in Mercurial than in Subversion?

How does Git solve the merging problem? What makes some version control systems better at merging?

Separation of committing from publishing This is important for larger features, because it means that one can work on a series of commits to implement a feature (each commit being small and self contained, for easy finding bugs by bisecting history) to one own satisfaction, and only when they are ready to publish them. A variant of this approach is to have separate public repository with rebasable branch with work in progress, and push (or send a pull request) only when branch is ready for inspection.

It seems that for us the "killer app" will turn to be the possibility to push code through stages. We will have DEV repo, which all the devs are pushing into it. QA repo will accept push from the DEV repo and will build it's version of the code for testing.

Once testing is complete they will push the code to Production repo (QA repo is the only one that can push changes to the production repo) from which a "production" release will be build. This is outlined briefly in Joel's hginit (near the bottom of the page). I will update this post once we actually implemented the described above setup.

I've just read my answer... well for the laughs of it: We decided to go continues-integration (CI). Meaning we have just 1 repo and are pushing changes directly into production. Still using Mercurial obviously but NO dev -> QA -> Production barriers :) /Me: happy.

– Maxim Veksler Oct 28 at 21:00.

For OSS projects: low entry barrier to contribute First, most DVCS has excellent tools to work with patches (usually sent by email), both to create them and to apply them. The contributor can create a patch using any tools (although it would be best to create patch with DVCS used by project, as some DVCS put extra information in patches), and send it to mailing list of a project, or directly to project maintainer, or attach it to the bug report / feature request in an issue tracker. Second, you don't need commit bit to be able to contribute.

Just clone project repository, and you can use full power of DVCS. You can then send patches, or a pull request, or push to 'mob' branch; there are many possibilities. It is an advantage also for project maintainer(s): he/she doesn't have to worry who can he/she trust to give "commit bit", i.e.

Access to repository, as it is the case in CVCS. Karl Fogel wrote in Producing Open Source Software. How to Run a Successful Free Software Project.

That he found it better for the project that restrictions such as access control better be social rather than technological; DVCS takes it further thanks to not requiring to decide whether to provide permission to commit.

The "killer app" seems to be distributed teams: rather than being tied to a central server (over a slow or unreliable connection), each team can have its own repository and push changes as needed.

Most functionality is available offline With centralised VCS like Subversion, the only thing you can do when offline is edit stuff. Some systems do give limited access to other functionality (e.g. In Subversion you can diff to and revert to the latest version from the repo), but most of what makes VCS useful, that is reading history checking out old versions committing creating branches is only possible if you are connected to the central server. With a DVCS, all the operations above work locally, and if something needs to go into the central server, you can always push it there later, when you are online again.

While this is probably unimportant if you are always online (such as at the office), it can be critical if you often have to work offline, such as while traveling or at home with a flaky connection. I started using git specifically because I often work on the road and usually don't have a (reliable) connection.

Sharing changes with others without publishing For me the killer app, when I was a large team, was being able to work together with other engineers, sharing changes, without needing to go through the central server. It meant we could share unfinished features in a controlled way (i.e. No "copy this file from my tree") and it all just worked.

Alice starts work on a feature, but it needs Bob to do some stuff before release. Bob takes Alice's changes directly, finishes off the feature. Alice and Bob might have stuff going back and forth between them.

Charlie, the QA guy, takes Bob and Alice's changes from one of them. Tests them. They're ok!

He pushes the whole lot onto the main server. Everybody else can now get the feature - complete and tested.

The best way to get rid of cold sores fast is to keep the area clean and dry. You might want to coat the sore in petroleum jelly to keep moisture and dirt away from the area. You can find more information here: ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Get-Rid-of-Col....

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.