> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:35:27 +0100
> From: Mads Martin J?rgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: David Terrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cvs on sf.net
>
> * Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Feb 07. 2002 20:24]:
> > > Are you planning on letting other people commit to the cvs tree
> > > on sf directly?
> >
> > not really.
why? what benefit does this arrangement bring to the BB community?
> > Blackbox has never been in CVS before.
so?
> > I use CVS as a safe database for code storage. If something bad
> > happens, I can always find the releases there. Granted, this is not
> > a common usage in the open source community. But this is not a
> > distributed project with 10s or 100s of contributors.
how is this related? even a one-man-show project benefits from a
versioning system.
> Lets keep this like the kernel. One guy gets all the patches, and
> decides what goes in or not.
I like the BSD way.
> If you write good code for the project, does it then matter if you
> send the patches to him or put them directly in CVS anyway?
yes, it does. I, as someone who has a potential patch might want to
have access to the latest-and-greatest code. I don't have that
today. I might want to submit improvements to the BB documentation.
I can't do it today. It wouldn't clash with the code 90% of time,
but I'd still have to bother Sean with any patches I might have:
because there's no repository of the code.
--
FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE
9:53PM up 18 days, 4:16, 15 users, load averages: 0.11, 0.03, 0.01
