On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 14:55 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:31:37PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > Right, bzr is great when you have a designed person to integrate > > contributor's changes after review. > > > > But if you have a set of equal developers, bzr can be also used in a > > very similar way to Subversion, where all commits go to a central > > repository, and nobody has to collect them. It's just a matter of > > setting up a directory somewhere with the appropriate write permissions, > > and say "This is our canonical archive, the uploader will include what > > it's in there, nothing more, nothing less". > > I would say that this goes for darcs as well, but even more. > > Darcs has a nice way of pushing patches via e-mail, with GPG signatures > even. These can be processed in an automated way on the server, > verified against, for instance, the Debian keyring, and then applied to > the repository. > > I think it would work even nicer. Its somewhat indirect though. bzr has an equivalent system too (called pqm) which accepts GPG-signed merge requests and applies them to the repository. FWIW. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part