Re: dVCS vs. CVS

[Bastien <bzg@altern.org>]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> They can just work with their own repository without ever getting
> commit access to the central one, and create patches and offer them.
> When those get accepted upstream, their repository will notice when it
> is next updated and drop the duplication.
>
> They can do much more useful work without being a risk.

Yes. This is precisely why a dVCS might help new people feel more
confident when submitting patches.  For now, the workflow is this:

1. find an issue
2. hack, fix it
3. check whether the code is correct
4. submit the patch to emacs-devel

Newcomers who wants to reach step 4 will have to go thru step 3 first,
and carefully review their code.  But when?  Right now?  A bit later,
when they feel more confident that they found the right solution to a
real problem?  I guess that in most cases, they will delay a bit before
sending anything.  And delaying means that they might loose track of the
change, or of the idea, or they will think it might have been magically
fixed in the meantime.

dVCS lets you work on your side without urging you to put your code
under public scrutiny.  You push when you're ready.  Others pull from
your repository when they think your code is okay.

-- 
Bastien