Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Rahul Sundaram wrote: The merit of implementing this social norm using a technical barrier is of course debatable. Precisely Uh, I know we are deviating from the topic, but why would that be debatable? DVCS aren't made just for making gatekeeping easier; they are made so that maintaining distributed code bases easier. Especially for open source projects, this makes a lot of sense. If you look at GitHub, they take it to a whole new level - where 'forking' a project is not much of an issue - it's completely acceptable - you just fork it into your account, work on the branch and commit it to your own repo, and ask the main project maintainer to 'pull' whenever your changes are ready to be integrated into the main project. In this way, you don't have to offend anybody that you forked a project, or worry that you have so much uncommitted changes lying around, and not bother the original project maintainer until your changes are fully tested and ready. V. ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Vamsee Kanakala wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: The merit of implementing this social norm using a technical barrier is of course debatable. Precisely Uh, I know we are deviating from the topic, but why would that be debatable? Social norms are different from technical barriers. Traditionally it has been tied together because systems like CVS and others that mimic it haven't offered a better model. Refer to the earlier links I have given to understand this better. Rahul ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Rahul Sundaram wrote: Social norms are different from technical barriers. Traditionally it has been tied together because systems like CVS and others that mimic it haven't offered a better model. Refer to the earlier links I have given to understand this better. I still don't get it. Why is being distributed a 'technical barrier' for anything? The point is, being distributed is an enabler. The result of less gate-keeping is an outcome of that. This is completely natural. Better systems make things which were chores earlier a bit easier. What's there to be debated here? V. ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Vamsee Kanakala wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: Social norms are different from technical barriers. Traditionally it has been tied together because systems like CVS and others that mimic it haven't offered a better model. Refer to the earlier links I have given to understand this better. I still don't get it. Why is being distributed a 'technical barrier' for anything? You are misreading the mail. I never claimed distributed was a technical barrier at all. Rahul ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Best wishes, Senthi! Cheers :-) -- ஆமாச்சு ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
2008/8/28 Sri Ramadoss M [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Best wishes, Senthi! Thank you all. Will continue to contribute to free software which gives me happiness :) -- Senthil Kumaran S http://www.stylesen.org/ ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
On 26-Aug-08, at 11:15 PM, Sujith wrote: Yes, you are right that there a few final gatekeepers who manage the releases, but it encourages a model where your code will be reviewed by many people before finally being accepted. which doesnt happen in svn repo projects? -- regards kg http://lawgon.livejournal.com http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
S.Ramaswamy wrote: Interestingly with a distributed model, the notion of commit access may not be that important at all. Nobody commits directly to the Linus git repository of the kernel except himself yet we have that model scaling incredibly well. Just a side note. This line of reasoning is slightly bizarre. Only if you don't understand it well. Getting your code into an official release is not just a matter of cloning a repository and then committing changes locally with a distributed version control system. Regardless of the nature of the version control system there are always gatekeepers who choose to accept or reject your changes. In the case of subversion it's the committers and in the case of Linux it's Linus' gatekeepers like Andrew Morton. I can clone the Linux git tree and commit locally, but one of the kernel gatekeepers has to accept it. Otherwise it's not going to get into the official Linux kernel. Sure, but official kernel is just a social norm than technical barrier. I think the distributed version control guys have not been able to articulate well their case well, and have been throwing out this You don't need commit access with DVCS marketing bit. There actually might be a few scenarios for which the DVCS approach is suited (like the Linux kernel), but those have not been explained well so far AFAIK. Where have you looked? http://lwn.net/Articles/280472/ http://keithp.com/blogs/Repository_Formats_Matter/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 Rahul ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: On 26-Aug-08, at 11:15 PM, Sujith wrote: Yes, you are right that there a few final gatekeepers who manage the releases, but it encourages a model where your code will be reviewed by many people before finally being accepted. which doesnt happen in svn repo projects? It can and Subversion developers themselves are big on review and enforce it consistently via cultural means (Refer http://producingoss.com/) but I would argue that the nature of the system doesn't by itself encourage it. It would really depend on the workflow. If you are using one of the DVCS's, almost any non-trivial work can go into a alternative branch and commits be done offline. Merge back is easy and fast. It can be viewed coherently as a whole instead of in terms of files which is important IMO for review. Rahul ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: On 26-Aug-08, at 11:15 PM, Sujith wrote: Yes, you are right that there a few final gatekeepers who manage the releases, but it encourages a model where your code will be reviewed by many people before finally being accepted. which doesnt happen in svn repo projects? Oh, it can certainly happen if you enforce policies. With DVCS, it is just part of the workflow. And I can understand where a centralized repo would make perfect sense. I use both Perforce and git on a daily basis and both have their merits. Sujith -- http://sujith-m.blogspot.com ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Interestingly with a distributed model, the notion of commit access may not be that important at all. Nobody commits directly to the Linus git repository of the kernel except himself yet we have that model scaling incredibly well. Just a side note. This line of reasoning is slightly bizarre.Getting your code into an official release is not just a matter of cloning a repository and then committing changes locally with a distributed version control system. Regardless of the nature of the version control system there are always gatekeepers who choose to accept or reject your changes. In the case of subversion it's the committers and in the case of Linux it's Linus' gatekeepers like Andrew Morton. I can clone the Linux git tree and commit locally, but one of the kernel gatekeepers has to accept it. Otherwise it's not going to get into the official Linux kernel. What Senthil has achieved is not merely making code changes, but getting them accepted through a review process. Congrats Senthil. I think the distributed version control guys have not been able to articulate well their case well, and have been throwing out this You don't need commit access with DVCS marketing bit. There actually might be a few scenarios for which the DVCS approach is suited (like the Linux kernel), but those have not been explained well so far AFAIK. Ramaswamy ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
S.Ramaswamy wrote: Interestingly with a distributed model, the notion of commit access may not be that important at all. Nobody commits directly to the Linus git repository of the kernel except himself yet we have that model scaling incredibly well. Just a side note. This line of reasoning is slightly bizarre.Getting your code into an official release is not just a matter of cloning a repository and then committing changes locally with a distributed version control system. Regardless of the nature of the version control system there are always gatekeepers who choose to accept or reject your changes. In the case of subversion it's the committers and in the case of Linux it's Linus' gatekeepers like Andrew Morton. I can clone the Linux git tree and commit locally, but one of the kernel gatekeepers has to accept it. Otherwise it's not going to get into the official Linux kernel. What Senthil has achieved is not merely making code changes, but getting them accepted through a review process. Congrats Senthil. I think the distributed version control guys have not been able to articulate well their case well, and have been throwing out this You don't need commit access with DVCS marketing bit. There actually might be a few scenarios for which the DVCS approach is suited (like the Linux kernel), but those have not been explained well so far AFAIK. Distributed version systems work well for a multiple of reasons. I don't need constant network connectivity. I can hack away on a local tree and send a pull request when I am done. Branch creation is local and not remote, which makes it almost instantaneous, merging becomes a really trivial affair. I have the entire history locally, so tracing/bisecting a bad commit is possible. Yes, you are right that there a few final gatekeepers who manage the releases, but it encourages a model where your code will be reviewed by many people before finally being accepted. And code review is surely a good thing. :) Sujith -- http://sujith-m.blogspot.com ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Bharathi Subramanian wrote: Hi All, Our ILUGC Member Senthil Kumaran S (http://www.stylesen.org/) got the Full-Committer access to SVN code base (http://svn.collab.net/). He is the 51st committer world wide and 2nd Indian full-committer. Other ILUGC member Bhuvaneswaran is also having partial commit access to SVN for a long time. You forgot Kamesh Jayachandran who is a colleague of Bhuvan ;) -- --- With Regards, Parthan technofreak gpg 2FF01026 blog http://blog.technofreak.in ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
On 8/25/08, Bharathi Subramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Our ILUGC Member Senthil Kumaran S (http://www.stylesen.org/) got the Full-Committer access to SVN code base (http://svn.collab.net/). Congratulations Senthil. ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
Re: [Ilugc] 2nd Indian SVN Full-Committer
Bharathi Subramanian wrote: Hi All, Our ILUGC Member Senthil Kumaran S (http://www.stylesen.org/) got the Full-Committer access to SVN code base (http://svn.collab.net/). He is the 51st committer world wide and 2nd Indian full-committer. Check http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/COMMITTERS. He is contributing to SVN Project for past 1 year 1 month. Congratulation Senthil Kumaran :) Other ILUGC member Bhuvaneswaran is also having partial commit access to SVN for a long time. Congrats. Interestingly with a distributed model, the notion of commit access may not be that important at all. Nobody commits directly to the Linus git repository of the kernel except himself yet we have that model scaling incredibly well. Just a side note. Rahul ___ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe password address in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
