DVCS does not mean anti-centralized. DVCS does not introduce arguments between developers, rather ameliorating them as it's easier to try things out and becoming more knowledgeable before discussing issues. It's about how to define the build and release systems. Obviously, you need a 'head revision' or 'release branch' or whatever you want to name the code that's defined as the one version that makes up the product. Having input from different places makes no difference on the release part of the process. Developers move the changes to the release/central build version just like they would with the old model. Almost all resistance I've seen so far is something similar to 'I don't like this because I have to learn something new' obfuscated behind a bunch of misconceptions.

There's nothing that suggests that centralized version control and corporate go hand in hand. A common misconception if you ask me, using a DVCS in every day work in a large corporate environment.... or ask sun for that matter. It's absolutely possible to have central release versions with DVCS, it's all about work flow practices.

git tutorial: 592 000 hits mercurial tutorial: 1 080 000 hits Am I missing something?