"SL Baur" <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
On 8/18/07, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> "SL Baur" <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> > (I look at the zillion different developer trees all aimed at the
> > single-point-of- failure Linus tree and say "Hell no!")
>
> The elevated status of Linus'
> repository is an organizational one, not a technical.
That's what I meant and wasn't sure about. Thanks.
To make this more clear: Linus is important because many people decide
to pull from him. But you can pull from multiple sources, and people
can decide to pull from you (if you want to offer some stuff). Linus'
tree is just one of several important sources. People can decide to
never pull anything from him, and get away fine. And everybody is
free to decide just what patches he considers fit for merging into his
own tree, and what remote tree he considers fit for rebasing his work
on (rebasing means rewinding history to a common ancestor, applying
all the other commits, then reapplying those commits not already in
that set again). Before you submit against the version of somebody
else, it is a good idea to rebase on his work, even if just in a
separate branch (creating private branches is dirt cheap in git).
If Linus dropped out of the game, development would continue. People
would at some point converge to some favorite preferred points to pull
from, but there would be no deadlock or vacuum in the mean time.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta