inline On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > might arise from those options. I think that's what your discussion > > basically boils down to. And I agree. For instance, a project that has > > mandatory copyright assignments won't necessarily like people to pull and > > push their changes from everywhere. > > there are numerous examples, indeed that's one of them. > > *cough* RavenDB has mandatory CLA, it works for us. > Create local copy of trunk, make changes, run tests, create patch, > send patch. patch gets applied to trunk, used does update on local copy Put a month in the middle, and suddenly this becomes much harder. For example, you might need to get approval for submitting your changes. > , > like everyone else and they all now get the patch. I don't see why history > is a problem for the _trunk_ using people. Sure, if you create branches > with > code obtained from others OUTSIDE the trunk, then it's problematic, but NH > is always developed on the trunk, so that's not really a problem IMHO. > Or, let us say that you are using the 2.1.x branch, and you patch that, it is SO MUCH easier to do cross branch merges in git. > >
