On Thursday 22 January 2009, Ian Monroe <[email protected]> wrote about 'Re: [Kde-scm-interest] On Amarok Switching to Git': >On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: >> Again, this is Git: there is *NO* canonical, central, unique source. >> Anyone's Git repository is as good as any other. > >Not even the most hardened proponent of Linux-style decentralized >repos would agree with that last statement.
Thiago wasn't necessarily referring to quality. He was basically saying that if one doesn't meet your requirements it is easy to switch to one that does, and that is the normal mode of operation for git. Even with CVS and SVN it would be possible to have to "equal" central repositories, with revisions that appear in both (albeit with different idenifiers in the different repositories), but it's incredibly painful, requiring a lot of effort on both sides. (Banish the thought of every developer being "in sync".) It is in that way that every git repository is "just as good" as any other. [1] >Plus no one, until you here now (maybe?), has been proposing that KDE >consider going away from having a canonical master branch. No, Thiago isn't proposing that. He's just proposing that the two separate repositories for Phonon remain two separate repositories. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but it think everyone would be well served with a "canonical" KDE repository run by the KDE project. (But with git it is easier to recover some types of disasters that can strike a canonical/central reposito -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [email protected] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/ [1] Shallow clones are not "just as good" as any other.
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
