Re: Real Life hits: need to give up packages for adoption
Christoph Haas wrote:
Darcs looks like a nice competitor but has some issues regarding
checking in changes automatically (might as well be my ignorance but it
sounds like I need weird scripts and a .procmailrc to merge changes
You don't *need* them; you can choose to do that, but you can also
choose otherwise. There are two ways to give contributors "commit
access" in darcs. (I'm using quotes because in Darcs, "commit" is an
ambiguous term and is usually avoided; I'm using it here to mean
incorporating a change in a special project-wide shared repository.)
Set up an email address which feeds messages to darcs. Darcs is capable
of checking GnuPG signatures in these mails and only allowing known keys
to "commit". The contributor "commits" by using the "darcs send" command.
The upside is that the contributors do not need shell access to the
server. The downside is that setting this up is not very easy.
Give contributors shell access to the server; make the shared repository
writable by all these accounts. The contributor "commits" by using the
"darcs push" command.
The upside is that this is very easy to set up. The downside is that
you need to give contributors shell access.
(I suppose a restricted shell is possible. I haven't investigated this.)
I personally prefer Way Two. I have tried Way One, but it isn't worth
the trouble most of the time.
What makes darcs special in my opinion is its support for second-class
contributors: anybody can "darcs send" stuff to the project mailing list
(if you've set stuff up for this; it's not very hard), the email is both
human- and computer-readable: it can be eyeballed and it can be fed
directly to darcs to incorporate the change to the local repository
(from which it can be "committed" to the shared repository, if this is
desired and one has the necessary "commit" privs).