> > If many developers try to push changes to a central repository, I > believe that the many explicit merges would get in the way. > Usually this is handled by restricting the number of developers > who can push to the main repository, and have one or a few > maintainers collect changes from developers (e.g. only Linus > himself pushes to the main kernel git tree).
On X.org + Mesa everyone pushes to a central repo, and we have a larger number of active developers than I'd guess either of the two projects mentioned... normally with git you can work away in your branch, and rebase onto the current HEAD to avoid any nasty merge messages.... and most ppl in X.org have gotten used to do doing this, after some education process... Distrubted is the way to go, swapping CVS for SVN isn't give you any advantages from a workflow pov... svn just fixes all the things CVS does wrong... working with git gives you a different workflow but one a lot of people seem to find more efficient... you also get git bisect which afterwards you'll wonder how you did without it.. I have to say using git on X.org has made a major difference once you get over the initial UI problems... I think git 1.5 makes a few major strides in this area at least... Dave. -- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
