On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:00 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Greg Hudson contributes an interesting viewpoint: > >> > >> <http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot> > > > > Well written, but does it contribute to our discussion here? Arch > > and Baz can both be used centrally, and with a group of committers. > > It might not scale as well right now, but efforts in the direction > > of automated patch integration systems promise to close this gap. > > See for instance the patch queue manager project. > > > > 0. http://web.verbum.org/arch-pqm/ > > arch-pqm still requires that people publish their own repositories. > This is often a challenge for people behind firewalls. pqm supports mailing a unified diff straight into the repository. I.e. echo -e "patch\\n$(baz diff)" | mail -s 'fix foo-bar' email@example.com. > If arch-pqm took advantage of the GNU arch capabilities and accepted > signed changesets instead of merge requests, things would be quite > different. Such an option exists for darcs, but I haven't used it. > It still doesn't provide the satisfaction of immediate feedback, I > fear. I haven't implemented a changeset based option, it would be quite easy if someone wants to do it. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part