clarification on git, central repositories and commit access lists

[Thomas Zander]

On Tuesday 21 August 2007 01:26:00 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> i'll be really unimpressed if i have to maintain multiple source trees
> based on 'random' SCM migration, e.g. kdepim is git but kdegraphics is
> svn. right now we have a pretty high % of people who track the whole of
> KDE, and that's only going to get hurt with a spotty transition.

Why would you have to maintain multiple source trees in case kdepim moved 
to git first?

If the kdepim team would want to move the majority of their development to 
git then you would hardly notice (as a svn user), AFAICT.

Their git trees (most likely more then one) would be published somewhere 
for kdepim enthusiasts to follow and develop on, but in the end you'd 
still need to move the patches that will eventually end up in the final 
release to subversion. 

I have not had the pleasure to spent a lot of time on git and trying out 
strategies, but in Darcs this would not be a problem. And the git tools 
are actually better then the ones for Darcs ;)

See also what Linus said on this subject at 
http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/21160/news.htm The answer to the 
question from Jordan Uggla. About half way down the page.

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070821/46871ed6/attachment.sig>