On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:21:39 -0400
Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Which means it's not really case 4 at all.
> >
> > Well, it's very clearly not cases 1, 2 or 3.
>
> No, it's case zero: standard multi-developer, multi-computer, single
> canonical master copy on one computer/cluster somewhere. The thing
> cases 1 through 4 were *alternatives* to.
>
> Technically true, but meaningless. The master gets tens of zillions of
> submissions
Completely and totally wrong. Linus developed the model used by the
Linux kernel specifically to avoid having some master copy on a
central server with tens of zillions of submissions. He wrote a SCM
that allowed the distributed, ad-hoc model to work without such a
central server. All because his experience with the kernel up to that
point was that he had reached the scalability limits of your case zero
model.
And now you're claiming it's a central server model in order to
justify your erroneous assumption that having a repository implies
having a server? I'm not sure whether that's more funny or pathetic.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
