On Thursday 24 July 2008, Thiago Macieira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: [Kde-scm-interest] svn, git, bzr': >Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: >>a (freedesktop) specification for the protocol and the repository model! >> >> :) > >I don't think this would work. > >The repository model is a consequence of the chosen workflow. And the >workflow is a consequence of the social interactions.
I think you mean mean something different by "repository model". When I hear that phrase I think of how history + optional working tree + tags/branches/named references + misc. are stored on disk, e.g. the layout of a .git directory. My idea of a "repository model" doesn't dictate a workflow any more than using git does (which is not much). With standards for "protocol" (how two repositories talk to exchange data) and "repository model" then the various DVCS could exchange data freely and you could just use the command set you were used to. Unfortunately, I don't think this would work either. If the "repository model" differed from a DVCS's current model, they would probably not move toward the new model for quite a while to avoid breaking backward compatibility. If it exactly matched one of the current DVCS's (X) the others (Y) would probably avoid it because "Y is not an X clone". -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
