As I said later on in my post, a /private/ source control system available to a single author could still be useful for any nontrivial project, for the very reasons you listed. However, my point was that it was unnecessary and confusing for the general public to be presented with such a system if all they /really/ want is a ready-to-install package. If those people are collaborating on code changes, then yes, something like a (semi)public SVN would be useful, but if all they want is to grab an image, why subject them to the extra work? If the author is so disorganized that he can't keep "latest stable version" separate from "bleeding edge", or that he can't be sure that "the latest build" really has the latest stuff in it, then I'm not sure I want his code.
When I buy a car, I don't want to be presented with several crates of parts and an instruction manual to sort it out and build it myself. I want something I can drive off the lot, because my objective is to purchase a means of transportation, not a new hobby. If I want to contribute to the /building/ of the car, that's a whole 'nother thing. Are we having a violent agreement? Chris Knadle wrote: > On Tuesday 26 August 2008, Phil M Perry wrote: > >> As for using a source code control system such as SVN, which has >> been discussed here, I don't see the point unless you're looking to >> have collaborative authorship. >> > > There is. The big deal is that making changes to already WORKING code > risks breaking it. The alternative to source control management is messy _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Jun 4 - Sqeak! and eToys Jul 2 - KVM (Tenative) Aug 6 - Zenos Sep 3 - TBD
