> There's really no need to use a central repository for git users, IMO, > people should be free to choose their own publishing point. There is > not much difference in: > > git pull . pri/<somebody>/<branch> // which is equivalent to git merge > pri/<somebody>/<branch> > > and > > git pull <somebodys_remote> <branch> > where <somebodys_remote> can be either be the full Git url or > configured by: git remote add <remote> <url> > > I wouldn't mind a backup in the pri/... branches though. I strongly disagree. A single central repository that contains everyone's branches means that you only have to go to one place (the Gitweb heads page, which is sorted by last update time) to see everything that is going on in Git land. If everyone hosts their own repository, it significantly increases the effort required to track current developments.
> >> This needs to be well documented. Also, will non-Git users need to >> consult this "one place"? > > I think non-git users should just stick to the subversion respository, > which should be the "official" repository for the Apache project. The > official branches (trunk and releases) needs to be sync'ed (with git- > svn) regularly using a post-commit hook in the "semi-official" git > repository, which is the merge point of Git users. I disagree with this also. I want non-Git users to be able to comment on branches that I submit for review. Also, we will not be publishing changes from Git back into SVN automatically at any time in the foreseeable future. --David
