-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Julio M. Merino Vidal Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [boost] torvalds on branching/merging (was Boost DevelopmentEnvironment proposal)
On 07/06/2007, at 16:21, David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed Jun 06 2007, troy d straszheim
<troy-AT-resophonic.com> wrote: [...]
* commit/branch/merge locally (not in the 'central' repository)
Interesting the emphasis on git's being distributed... there is no 'central repository'.
This part I have some trouble buying. In Linus' world, *his* repository is central... well, at least, it's the master from which releases are spun. In a project where we don't have a single arbiter for what goes into a release, I'm not sure we can have a master.
And what many people fails to realize: a DVCS may not bring _you_ (the "official" developers) any advantage over a centralized one. But it does really bring advantages to outsiders. They can just clone the central repository, do any changes to it without having to make them public, and painlessly keep it in sync with the master copy at the central repository. (I'm currently doing that to maintain some changes I'm working on for Linux/PS3.)
I think those who prefer to use a DVCS can just use SVK on top of subversion (http://svk.bestpractical.com/). Thus you can have the best of both worlds. I also assume that you need a BDFL or a cabal, for a completely distributed repository to work. IMHO, such a project structure is not desirable and maybe dangerous for ongoing support (this naturally depends on the actual BDFL or cabal). I just can't imagine, say, Debian getting anything useful done by relying _exclusively_ on a DVCS. cheers, aa -- Andreas Ames | Programmer | Comergo GmbH | ames AT avaya DOT com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart - HRB 22107 Geschäftsführer: Andreas von Meyer zu Knonow, Udo Bühler, Thomas Kreikemeier