On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > So far, we had a pretty clear distinction about the project. We had > committers & contributers, and a single source of truth, the repository. > With the move to Git, I think we need to change the way that we work. I got > a few ideas, but there are people here with more Git experience. > Thoughts? >
I think it's a really interesting topic (and demonstrates perfectly why I think git is bad for corporate development). :) DVCS is a disruptive technology because it takes breaks all the old rules and controls of VCS. A codebase in git has many or zero owners, depending on how you look at look at it. For example, if someone wants to hack on Rhino Tools, where do they go? Which codebase do they use? They could use one of these... http://github.com/leemhenson/rhino-tools/network/members ..or what about this one? http://github.com/chrisortman/rhino-tools/tree/master And if you think that's bad... http://github.com/rails/rails/network/members So how do people choose? Name recognition, reputation, date-time stamps, unique features...? Any/all of the above, I reckon. It's a meritocracy / popularity contest! As the conversation today on twitter indicates, some people will not like this disruptive quality at all ("You forked my project!?!?"). It will be interesting to see how it bears out. If I didn't have evidence that it can actually work (e.g. RoR) I would be extremely skeptical that it could possibly be a good thing. Shows what I know. --Stuart --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
