Scribit Barry deFreese dies 24/07/2007 hora 14:00: > Didn't we try this already with the AMS branch or whatever it was? > How is it much different to have patches in an experimental branch if > no-one reviews and commits them upstream then it is to have them in > Debian?
Sorry, but a branch only provides an infinitesimal part of a DVCS benefits. IIRC, like in many other projects this size, some active contributors had to wait quite some time to obtain write access to the CVS. With a DVCS, you don't have to provide patches, and people won't have to deal with applying them on the source. Any contributor can provide a first-class repository with its own modifications, preserving metadata like commit logs and modifications dependency, because they are a tree of linked changesets. And changesets from any set of those repositories can be merged together. If they don't conflict, it can be done with a negligible effort, and repeated merges will continue to as easy. And of course, you also get all the performance enhancements: all operations are local and quick (no network used) and you can work offline (no network needed). That said, I have a very strong bias towards DVCS, because the one I use daily, Mercurial, made my every day work a lot more easier, and not only for my own projects. A repository is created in a directory and populated with the directory's content in a matter of seconds, which makes it possible to trivially track even small modifications to any kind of content in a directory. You even get a quilt-like tool integrated with the VCS (the idea was even ported to git). Quickly, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
