On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 14:51 +0000, Bruno Medeiros wrote: [ . . . ] > That stuff about DVCS not having a central repository is another thing > that is being said a lot, but is only true in a very shallow (and > non-useful) way. Yes, in DVCS there are no more "working copies" as in > Subversion, now everyone's working copy is a full fledged > repository/clone that in technical terms is peer of any other repository. > However, from an organizational point of view in a project, there is > always going to be a "central" repository. The one that actually > represents the product/application/library, where the builds and > releases are made from. (Of course, there could be more than one central > repository if there are multiple kinds of releases like > stable/experimental, or forks of the the product, etc.)
Definitely the case. There can only be one repository that represents the official state of a given project. That isn't really the issue in the move from CVCS systems to DVCS systems. > Maybe the DVCS world likes the term public/shared repository better, but > that doesn't make much difference. In the Bazaar community, and I think increasingly in Mercurial and Git ones, people talk of the "mainline" or "master". -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part