On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:18:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On 5/12/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >There was an easy way not to problong the discussion. Restore the svn > >commit > >acces, which you could have done all those weeks ago if you had not been > >too > >proud and afraid to lose face. > > Better: do like Linus, and take away access from all but one person. > > BSD has always had nasty fights over commit access. Commit bits > are greatly political in nature. They can not be removed without hurt. > Thus the existance of OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD. > > Linux doesn't suffer this way. The closest thing ever was the IDE > maintainer being changed a couple times. (so avoid MAINTAINERS > files too) Feelings can't get hurt all that much if there isn't any > status to revoke. > > Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads > to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone.
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 :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]