Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:18:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> >There was an easy way not to problong the discussion. Restore the svn
> >acces, which you could have done all those weeks ago if you had not been
> >proud and afraid to lose face.
> Better: do like Linus, and take away access from all but one person.
> BSD has always had nasty fights over commit access. Commit bits
> are greatly political in nature. They can not be removed without hurt.
> Thus the existance of OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD.
> Linux doesn't suffer this way. The closest thing ever was the IDE
> maintainer being changed a couple times. (so avoid MAINTAINERS
> files too) Feelings can't get hurt all that much if there isn't any
> status to revoke.
> Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads
> to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone.
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 :)