On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 04:57:44PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:53:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:18:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > > Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads > > > to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone. > > Another alternative is darcs ( http://abridgegame.org/darcs/ ) > > > It does mean forking and fragmentation of the code base, which would not be > > best for d-i and debian. But yes, having a distributed revision system would > > be helpful in these cases, and if people don't come to their sense and this > > issue be solved, i will be left only to create a svk-based duplicate of the > > d-i svn repo, and make this one the authoritative version for the packages i > > upload or changes i make. Imagine the mess this will cause :) > > I do see the smilely, but I don't understand it. > The "Imagine the mess this cause" makes me worry. > Where will be the mess? Is it a threat?
Nope. Imagine i upload a new nobootloader version, with some changes in it. I either upload it directly, without revision system, or with my own shadow copy of the d-i svn like above. Now, someone else needs to modify nobootloader. He is not aware of my changes, commits to the d-i svn, and uploads the package. My changes are lost. Next time i upload my changes, i may well not notice that there was another upload, and the other changes are lost. (Well, probably not, because i will have some svk based tool to merge those changes into my tree). So, we end up in a mess, because there is no more only a single authoritative (or even juste a single) copy of the repository for the package. This is the reason why i am arguing against the current proposal which doesn't restore my svn d-i access, and why i have not even tried to do any d-i work since then. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
