On Dec 18, 2017, at 5:55 PM, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > > Git does it by using email addresses for identity instead of user names
It also occurs to me that Git typically inverts the push/pull relationship as compared to Fossil. I can’t get random checkins into Linus’ git tree merely because one of his trusted lieutenants trusts me because Linus must *pull* from the lieutenant’s tree, which lets him decide whether he trusts each checkin individually. Fossil’s model says, “Whatever you say about the ownership of these commits, I trust, because you can log into me.” That’s one of Fossil’s advantages of course: In a small organization with high trust levels, the owner of the central repo doesn’t need to spend time acting as a gatekeeper for each commit. Most problems can be dealt with adequately post-facto. If any changes are made, they should be done with this philosophical difference in mind. I do not intend that Fossil turn into Git. It is also the case that unlimited transitive trust probably isn’t the best plan for all Fossil users. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
