[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 12:24:26 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4

Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> KHMan wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, git/repo.or.cz has this "mob" branch which is open for anonymous
> pushing.  I like this idea and I think this could turn out to be a
> beneficial development model.  It could also be horrible, sure.

Yeah, I know it all sounds cool and I'm a killjoy. :-) Engineers
are conservative, we're trained like that. Nothing wrong with
either view. Bernhard Fischer wrote in the other e-mail: "patches
can be journaled into for discussion and review." I hope someone
actually takes responsibility for "discussion and review" because
assumptions ("jumping to the Island of Conclusions" in the
parlance of Norman Juster) is quite a short step from disaster.
Here, we probably won't get people killed, but still...

"Distributed version control" is sometimes pushed like "Web 2.0".
I find it sorta disturbing. I'm more concerned about quality
assurance and maximizing the use of what little resources that we

> I didn't want to bring up the topic of hg vs git, but there is a public
> git hosting site (repo.or.cz) which helps making progress without
> somebody dedicated providing the infrastructure.

I'm totally neutral. :-) Just waiting for an announcement...

> [snip]
> Don't get me wrong, this is not personal.  It's just about the
> conceptual model of code access.  You propose a single authority, I
> propose a completely distributed model where maybe eventually there will
> be one repo which a fraction of the users will consider as "current" or
> "stable" "enough".

No offense taken, of course. I've thought about the details, but
I'm unsure about execution, that's the reason for my skepticism.
Sure, theoretically a "completely distributed model", but I don't
believe I've seen a posting announcing availability of a new
Mercurial repo for sharing yet. I've now got Mercurial installed
myself, but I won't want to maintain a public access node. So
AFAIK I don't think you can pull from me, right? How many repos
will one be able to pull from, anyway, since there seem to be a
dearth of available repos so far? That's the little problem I see
with the scenario: your model has no announced nodes so far.
Moreover, once I send exported changesets to you, it becomes push.

So, to simplify, I propose that we can anoint the first hero to
declare his repo "open for business" as the temporary focal point
or common denominator.

Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

reply via email to

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