Beman Dawes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <troy@resophonic.com> wrote:
Eugene Wee wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
As an experiment, I've locked branches/release while I build a new release candidate.
One problem: It took just one minute shy of two hours to apply the lock. That's no fun. Presumably it will take another two hours to unlock it. As an aside, I wonder how long the equivalent operation would have taken with Git? I am a Bazaar user, not a Git user, so pardon my ignorance: is there even an equivalent operation for Git? I would think that one would just use a local branch and thus be oblivious to any further changes committed, except when pulling from the remote release branch intentionally. You're right, there is no such operation, the distributed architecture makes it unnecessary.
The point isn't always just for the release manager to be oblivious to further changes, it may also be to prevent those further changes to the master server (or whatever Git calls it) in the first place.
Yes, exactly.
I probably don't understand how the master server is updated and administered in a distributed environment. That will probably become obvious if I do some more reading.
I found Linus Torvalds' Google Tech Talk enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 -t