On 9/2/2014 12:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:08:22PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
On 9/2/2014 09:00, Dömötör Gulyás wrote:
This is the main issue I have: git does not follow the principle of
least surprise.
Linus Torvalds is unique. No one else on the planet has a
problem that big and complex to solve.
While I agree on the uniqueness of Torvalds, I don't agree with the
rest. The Linux kernel is *not* that big when compared with many other
projects.
Lines of code is not the important measure here.
The uncommon thing about the Linux kernel development effort is that it
is highly distributed, with many merge layers and multiple independent
but communicating major repositories. An outsider wanting to get a
change into the kernel doesn't just email a patch(1) file to
torva...@linux.com, he has to work it up through these layers. Some
changes sit for months or years in one of the alternate kernel repos
before it makes its way into Linus's git repo.
Such a messy process requires a tool set that can wrangle that mess into
some semblance of coherency.
If you don't have that kind of mess, you don't need those tools.
Other large projects either...
1. ...live largely or entirely within the scope of a single organization
so presumably the check-in hierarchy is either flat or nearly so. (e.g.
the Windows OS)
2. ...have a simple dividing line between those "inside" the project and
those "outside" it. You either have a commit bit or you do not. Those
without must submit patches. (e.g. FreeBSD)
In both cases, commits end up in The Repository, singular, in short order.
Such projects that use a DVCS are likely using it as "master plus
remotes with minor temporary differences" rather than the federation
model of Linux kernel development.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
