Talk:Distributed revision control

Cleanup

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:

1. The article is rather 'listy'.
2. the article is mainly unsourced
3. The section headings don't follow the Manual of style.
4. There are many external links in the article, that should be replaced with wikilinks, or not be linked at all.
5. The statement "fairly recent" in first paragraph is not a statement that will age well. Give an approximate year at least.

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)

Merger proposal

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)

Comment: If the merge happens, I think it should be from this article to Revision Control, not the other way around. RossPatterson (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with RossPatterson. Whether or not distributed revision control needs a separate article, the main article needs to cover distributed revision control. Both topics gain from close comparison. If merging, merge from Distributed revision control to Revision control#Distributed revision control. --Michael Allan (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

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)

History

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)

Sure, that's really intersting. RossPatterson (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)