On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 07:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > King InuYasha wrote: > > Well, Bazaar and Mercurial can both support semi-centralized repository > > systems. In the Enano CMS Project, we created a public mirror of all the > > repositories that are worked on in Nighthawk, which is the build and > > development server of all the work in Mercurial revisions of Enano CMS. > > While realistically Fedora cannot have such a system, the principle of > > designating certain branches of repositories for central authorization so > > that stuff like QA can manage it is possible with a single repository > > setting. Heck, I think even Ubuntu does that with Bazaar. Though as far as > > distributed VCSes go, I prefer Mercurial. Since Fedora is a Linux OS, I > > suppose it is fine to use GIT, but I try to avoid non-cross platform VCSes. > > Svk has an interesting magic ability to work with a mirrored subversion > project. That lets you treat the subversion repository as centralized > but people who prefer to work with a local copy can run svk, tell it to > sync with the subversion copy, then make a local branch for their > changes. When they merge the branch changes back to the mirrored > project, svk automagically commits them to the central subversion repo. > I haven't done this myself but there are some tutorials floating > around on the net with the steps for this procedure. Some members of the Samba team tried that, and it didn't end up working too well. Particularly as moving the commits upstream basically amounted to a mega-patch with any authorship and commit details just being in the log. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
