> > Interestingly with a distributed model, the notion of commit access may not > be that important at all. Nobody commits directly to the Linus git > repository of the kernel except himself yet we have that model scaling > incredibly well. Just a side note. >
This line of reasoning is slightly bizarre.Getting your code into an official release is not just a matter of cloning a repository and then committing changes locally with a distributed version control system. Regardless of the nature of the version control system there are always gatekeepers who choose to accept or reject your changes. In the case of subversion it's the committers and in the case of Linux it's Linus' gatekeepers like Andrew Morton. I can clone the Linux git tree and commit locally, but one of the kernel gatekeepers has to accept it. Otherwise it's not going to get into the official Linux kernel. What Senthil has achieved is not merely making code changes, but getting them accepted through a review process. Congrats Senthil. I think the distributed version control guys have not been able to articulate well their case well, and have been throwing out this "You don't need commit access with DVCS" marketing bit. There actually might be a few scenarios for which the DVCS approach is suited (like the Linux kernel), but those have not been explained well so far AFAIK. Ramaswamy _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe <password> <address>" in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
