Plan9 in general doesn't follow the Bazaar model ( the current usual way of doing things ).
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, dante <subscripti...@posteo.eu> wrote: > I would like first to thank everyone for the kind replies! > Each was useful in it's own way. > > > On 18.07.2014 16:36, erik quanstrom wrote: >>> >>> Yet: is there a source control system behind it? >>> Would it be possible to check out directly from there? >> >> >> there is nothing most folks would recognize as a distributed >> revision control system. >> >> the repo is sources itself. history is through history(1). >> you can "check out" code with cp(1), tar(1), mkfs(8); you can >> keep up with the repo with replica(1). >> >> patches are submitted via patch(1). > > > I would argument that the Status Quo has the following disadvantages when > compared to the the current usual way of doing things: > > 1. The history is confined to Plan9. > It is hard to do small fixes (typos, documentation) from another system. > > 2. There are no commit comments. > There is no "blame" command. > There are no release tags (allowing for unstable work in between). > There are no branches (allowing for collective work on an unstable > version). OK, my machine is my branch... > > 3. Contrib packages are tied to people; there is no common repository. > This leads to the situation where you can't update a package of a long > gone user. > Please tell me how many Mercurial packages you can find in Contrib! > > I maintain my impression that the Status Quo, though good for a small team, > does not allow the project to grow. > Were there any efforts to change this? > Or is it a controversial matter and it stays as it is? > Or is the team indeed so small (or even loosing members), s.t. that a change > won't make sense? > > Kind Regards, > Dante > > >> >>> If there is none, could it be that this contributes to the lack of >>> popularity and to the fragmentation of Plan9 (9front, 9atom, 9legacy, >>> PlanB, other plans...)? >> >> >> i would think the "lack of popularity" can be most directly attributed >> to the closed license in the early 90s, when there was an unfilled niche, >> and linux was seriously lacking. >> >> i starting doing something slightly different when il was pulled from >> the distribution while i was in no position to stop using it. it had >> nothing >> to do with source control. >> >> - erik > >
