Re: distributed version control systems
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:53:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:18:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > > Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads
> > > to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone.
>
> Another alternative is darcs ( http://abridgegame.org/darcs/ )
>
> > It does mean forking and fragmentation of the code base, which would not be
> > best for d-i and debian. But yes, having a distributed revision system would
> > be helpful in these cases, and if people don't come to their sense and this
> > issue be solved, i will be left only to create a svk-based duplicate of the
> > d-i svn repo, and make this one the authoritative version for the packages i
> > upload or changes i make. Imagine the mess this will cause :)
>
> I do see the smilely, but I don't understand it.
> The "Imagine the mess this cause" makes me worry.
> Where will be the mess? Is it a threat?
Nope.
Imagine i upload a new nobootloader version, with some changes in it. I either
upload it directly, without revision system, or with my own shadow copy of the
d-i svn like above.
Now, someone else needs to modify nobootloader. He is not aware of my changes,
commits to the d-i svn, and uploads the package. My changes are lost.
Next time i upload my changes, i may well not notice that there was another
upload, and the other changes are lost. (Well, probably not, because i will
have some svk based tool to merge those changes into my tree).
So, we end up in a mess, because there is no more only a single authoritative
(or even juste a single) copy of the repository for the package.
This is the reason why i am arguing against the current proposal which doesn't
restore my svn d-i access, and why i have not even tried to do any d-i work
since then.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: