Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Caligo" <iteronve...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.451.1294306555.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com>wrote:
That's pretty much what I'm afraid of, losing my grip on how the whole
thing works if there are multiple dmd committers.
Perhaps using a modern SCM like Git might help? Everyone could have
(and
should have) commit rights, and they would send pull requests. You
or one
of the managers would then review the changes and pull and merge with
the
main branch. It works great; just checkout out Rubinius on Github to
see
what I mean: https://github.com/evanphx/rubinius
I'm not sure I see how that's any different from everyone having
"create and submit a patch" rights, and then having Walter or one of
the managers review the changes and merge/patch with the main branch.
I don't, either.
There's no difference if you're only making one patch, but once you make
more, there's a significant difference. I can generally manage to fix
about five bugs at once, before they start to interfere with each other.
After that, I have to wait for some of the bugs to be integrated into
the trunk, or else start discarding changes from my working copy.
Occasionally I also use my own DMD local repository, but it doesn't work
very well (gets out of sync with the trunk too easily, because SVN isn't
really set up for that development model).
I think that we should probably move to Mercurial eventually. I think
there's potential for two benefits:
(1) quicker for you to merge changes in;
(2) increased collaboration between patchers.
But due to the pain in changing the developement model, I don't think
it's a change we should make in the near term.
