Andrew Bartlett wrote:
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.
But isn't that a matter of choice? That is, you should be able to merge
your changes to the mirrored svn project at the same frequency you you
be doing commits without svk involved - if you want to or the project
management says you have to.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
