Dan North wrote:
On 11/7/07, *Elizabeth Keogh*
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hi all,
If you guys are in on this, that makes me happy.
Hooray!
- I reserve the right to revert your version if you break the build.
What is this "revert" and "version" of which you speak? :)
Code changes will take the form of patch bundles mailed to the list (or
attached to the as-yet-unnamed tracker). The despot(s) then review them
and merge them into a local repository. If the changes make them happy,
they can push them upstream to the CI repository. This will probably be
different from the download repository, which will be slightly more
stable. (This is how Linux kernel development works - there's a main
repo that the core devs use to sync with one another and another one
"further" upstream that regular kernel users can pull stable changes from.)
Of course devs are free to share patches between one another too, to try
out different ideas or get early access to in-flight bug fixes. Ain't
distributed scm grand?
Please do feel free to argue about my own features; I find the
arguments often uncover better ways of solving the problem.
I can't see you being short of people to argue features with.
You also have the right to revert / delete my code if I fall foul of
my own rules (it's happened).
Again this "revert"!
In all disagreements, the despots' respectful decision is final.
Yep, that's what despot means!
Is that OK with you all?
You see, you're still not getting into character as a despot (unless
that was rhetorical). You sign off with: "as you were", or "that is all".
Cheers,
Liz.
Cheers,
Dan
Seems like you guys have been listening to too much Wagner lately -
Poland better be careful, as Woody Allen would say :-)
Seriously, I've never worked in earnest with distributed SCM so I'm open
to discussions about how the process would work.
In general, my understanding of it is that there a trust network, and
that in essence applies to non-distributed development too. In this
sense, all committers should be able to commit (or apply patches in the
distributed sense - will they be renamed appliers? ;-) and not just despots.
And for the nature of despotism, I think that a sledgehammer approach
for a small development team is not a good one - as it does not
contribute to a community spirit. I'm a believer in the gospel of Paul
(Hammant :-) and his Least Common Denominator (TM) approach. Sure, the
despots should ultimately settle disputes and disagreements (the stick),
but after suitable discussions and argumentations (the carrot). It is
important to have different views co-exist and where possible mediate
finding the LCD.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
