I am aware of the differences from our current system, but they are not so big. Please continue reading:
2010/12/3 Colin Campbell <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 15:24 +0100, Francisco Vila wrote: >> Git is already distributed and all the eggs are not in one basket. Wit >> git installed in your system, you have a repository server just like >> that in GNU. Gittorrent just removes restrictions on a centralised >> management, which is more a political problem rather than technical. >> LilyPond, like most projects, does have a central code repository and >> a core development team: if we change that, we are talking about >> another very different project. >> > > I see your point, Francisco, but the difference is this: we have a > single server which is considered canonical; It is considered canonical because we consider it canonical. If it were fully distributed, we still had to choose one as the canonical one. > you and I have *copies* of > the repo, Not exact. Git are not files we just copy. Git already consists of multiple servers, one for each local repo which you call "a copy". > and we can do as we like to our local version. I consider a good thing that I can do whatever I like to my local version. > Others have no > knowledge of the state of our repo. Others should have knowledge of my repo? > When that single point of failure, > the savannah server, goes offline, so does our definitive version of > lilypond. It is only definitive because we choose it to be. That is our is policy, not a technical problem. If savannah becomes corrupted and I trust on another repo more than in savannah's, what should be considered definitive will move from savannah to that repo. > The trust comes from access to a single physical version of > the source. So called "copies" are _equivalent_ physical versions. All commits are signed, trust comes from the sha1 encryption. > In a truly distributed, not just widely copied, VCS, the trust is based, > for example, on credentials: only certain people can make changes, Only certain people can already make changes, and that does not prevent me from making changes on my local "copy". > using > some irrefutable signature. Things already work that way. > The changes are propagated in a torrent, _That_ makes a difference. > so > the repository exists in its canonical form on many machines, _that_ does not make a difference. It's already so. > any one of > which can be unavailable without compromising the whole. The whole is already not compromised even if the central "copy" goes offline. Just we don't have a permanent server for others constantly seeing our repos from outside world. But when we push, there are no differences between our repo and the remote. That is why I say it's more a matter of policy than technical. No centralised version, everybody sees others' repos, that is another project as I previously said. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
