[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?

From: KHMan
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:48:04 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4

Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
> 2007/10/30, KHMan <address@hidden>:
>> ... If there is a FLOSS project where commit access
>> is *totally* open like a wiki, please let me know, it would be an
>> interesting factoid to know.
> Linux kernel, Xorg, Wine, etc., in that they are using Git, and anyone
> is free to commit to his local repository. I understand that you are
> not familiar (and seemingly even hostile) to the distributed version
> control, but you don't need to force your view to others.

Please discuss push and pull models separately, and give a little
more detail. Linus will not pull from any stranger, and there is
push at the edges. Pull requires trust of quality or verification
of work. The latter is non-trivial. The former requires
relationships to be established. Promiscuous pull entails risk. A
wiki is more akin to a push model, where commits are totally open.
Never seen a pull wiki yet... I can't really see it being equated
with git or hg. Of course, I welcome actual examples.

You have given some examples. Can you be more specific? Simon
mentioned wikis as a analogue; are there close equivalent models
in revision control? I fail to see how you can use Linux as an
example. It's sorta distributed, but the trust hierarchy is
non-trivial. Thus, it's hard to equate that with a "totally open"
model that I believe Simon is trying to paint. I'm assuming this
community wishes to maximize economic utility for all by trying to
stick to "one true tree".

Yeah, perhaps the magical sharing of changesets is the "holy
grail" of revision control, but the fact that you can
automatically merge in a changeset from a significantly different
tree does not say anything about whether the source is still
correct, or subtly broken. Everyone still falls back to manual
merge when things go wrong. There is still a desire to not diverge
too much if one is to still work on essentially the same branch,
so we often have what Simon calls a "common denominator", thus
there will be a trust hierarchy.

Both Simon and you seem to be in academia, so I sorta expect
stronger and more persuasive arguments.

Thanks for the feedback,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]