On Thursday 25 March 2010 21:04:34 Ximin Luo wrote: > however, repositories grant *access* to branches. if we move to the > "distributed" model (mis-term IMO) we will effectively be removing a shared > branch that a lot of people can commit to. i think this is a bad thing. > sometimes you have random one-off commits that don't really belong in a > specific branch, and a shared pool branch is the best place to commit it.
As you yourself just shared, Git doesn’t care where exactly the commit comes
from. Somebody could apply the fix locally, and toad (or somebody else) can
fetch a repository containing that commit and cherry-pick it. (Or use more
advanced Git magic.)
Also I think that your notion of “a shared branch that a lot of people can
commit to” is slightly flawed. Everybody commits into their own repository.
There _is_ no “shared branch.”
> for this reason i think the current setup is fine; people can start
> personal branches if they need or want to (and i think this should be seen
> as the norm). perhaps we should discourage use of the shared "staging"
> branch, but i don't want to lose it altogether.
I’m not arguing against a staging branch, I’m arguing against a staging
repository.
> X
David
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
