On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:09:43PM -0700, James Pickens wrote: > I think you understood the question perfectly, and your comments all make > sense. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid and this won't be a problem at all. I guess it's most depending of your proposed general workflow. So, it makes sense. > A bit of background might help explain my paranoia: I'm about to pilot Git > on a fairly large project, where none of the users have Git experience, and > many of them don't have much experience with any other version control > system either. As I understand, a part of your workflow is based on automatic testing stages. It could be a good thing but I think you have to fit this into a more general "human based worflow". I mean that parallel developments should have one or more "official maintainers". Maintainers would have to care of the history integrity, assume the responsability of passing the tests, etc. IMHO, good maintainers you can trust is much better than any "more automatic restrictive testing suites". Here is a link talking about that kind of issues that you (and your maintainers) may be interested in: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Git_Management -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
