On Monday 27. October 2008 02:18:43 Thomas Capricelli wrote: > Other projects using mercurial (opensolaris, xine, audacious..) do not > seem to find that those two points are showstopper. The most common > pattern is to have a central repository people access with ssh keys > (which is less 'open' that what you seem to want), and those people are > trusted if they commit stuff coming from other places than them.
I share the office with one of the git peeps in Qt Software. This means that if people have hard questions they come to him. (we are spreading the knowledge quickly, though ;) After we switched to Git for Qt one thing we struggled with was basically the question of accountability. But in a much more friendly way. People don't set up their email addresses properly, people forget to rebase and instead merge which creates a more complex history to understand. And other things. The basic problem then is that if I want to answer a question as to whom made a certain merge, who pushed a certain commit etc. You quickly realize that people just following their old workflow *will* make simple mistakes that leads to confusion. And confusion over the concepts of distributed systems can lead to distrust unless you have enough information to explain what happened. And tell the user what he or she can do to avoid a certain situation (use pull --rebase instead of merge) or something as simple as gitorious has a bug and shows files touched in a merge commit. So, to avoid distrust we need accountability. Naturally to have accountability we also need it, but I think the former reason is vital to having a successful roll-out of a new SCM because when developers start to distrust their SCM, it becomes a barrier to contribution. -- Thomas Zander
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest