"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote in message news:op.vpxqmbpftuz...@cybershadow.mshome.net... > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:22:34 +0200, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> Vladimir Panteleev wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:33:35 +0200, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think this is a fallacy. It only applies if you >>>> (1) *completely disallow* any centralisation -- which I don't think >>>> ever happens in practice! >>> What about the Linux kernel? There's Linus's git repo, and lots of >>> repos maintained by others (e.g. Linux distros). The other distros are >>> not a superset of Linus's repo, they have their own branches with >>> various project-specific patches and backports. Git was written for >>> this specifically. >> >> Yes, but each distro has a trunk, in which all commits are ordered by >> time. There's always an official version of every branch. > > Ordered by time of what? Time of merging into the branch? That's not very > useful, is it?
Why wouldn't it be? It didn't exist in that branch befoe, and then it was added to that branch. "Feature X was introduced in Version 2.31 and didn't exist in the 1.x line. But then Feature X was backported to the 1.x line at time Y / revision Y, which was right after we fixed 1.x's bug A and right before we fixed 1.x's bug B". What's wrong with that? Seems perfectly sensible to me.