On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler >> <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> > Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC >> for non-committers. And that a release vote means that at least three >> people have reviewed the code from (at least) an IP standpoint, if not from >> a code quality standpoint. >> > >> > In other words, +1 >> > >> > However, RTC projects do not use a mix and that's the point of >> contention here, some people feel it is suboptimal (I'm one, but others >> disagree). The discussion is not whether CTR also uses RTC at points, I >> believe that is a given. >> >> Let me be pedantic for a moment. While RTC projects that use >> Subversion may disallow work in branches, even by committers; such a >> restriction isn't even possible in Git -- even for non committers. > > Not only isn't something you can forbid, it isn't even something that I > could understand without reading your sentence three times. > > Git is all about branching. Forbidding branches is a non sequitur.
The most you can do in Git is to say that you can't do it in THIS location or give it THAT name. In which case, the inevitable response will be, OK, I'll do it elsewhere and/or give it a different name. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
