Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > I think that is a confusing way to compare them.
>     > It focuses on similarities in implementation
>     > rather than on similarities in use and role.
>
>     But the use and role is completely the same as using a private CVS
>     repository: all the diff and merge and branch and commit machinery works
>     for single persons quite similar as with CVS.
>
> We are miscommunicating.  I'm using the word role "role" to refer to
> relationship actions, such as "changing which version a user will get
> when he asks for the current development version".

"the current development version" is not a concept for git.  No
repository is special as far as git is concerned.  The "current
development version" is a social, not a technical concept.  For example,
the git maintainer was off-line unexpectedly for some months recently.
Somebody else took over seamlessly by collecting, arranging and
coordinating patches on the git list into _his_ repository.  When the
maintainer finally came back, he more or less pulled from this person's
repository (could have been one or more persons), and the "official"
repo was more or less in synch.

There is no single point of failure.  In fact, Linux has about a dozen
serious kernel repositories maintained by different persons which all
have a different set of patches that they consider fit for use.  They
exchange patch sets, and some are accepted and some are left out, but
the special role for Linus Torvalds' kernel is just that people like his
criteria for what he applies and what he rejects (either ultimately, or
at first).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum