On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:33:35 +0200, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I think this is a fallacy. It only applies if you
(1) *completely disallow* any centralisation -- which I don't think ever
happens in practice!
What about the Linux kernel? There's Linus's git repo, and lots of repos
maintained by others (e.g. Linux distros). The other distros are not a
superset of Linus's repo, they have their own branches with various
project-specific patches and backports. Git was written for this
specifically.
and (2) demand that cloning a repository be an entirely read-only
operation (so that the repository doesn't know how many times it has
been cloned)
and (3) demand that the revision numbers behave exactly as they do in
svn.
Then you're suggesting that the commit identifiers basically contain the
clone history?
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
