From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Piet van Oostrum Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:35:28 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20080101171120.GC3830@muc.de> <20080101.190535.32709273.wl@gnu.org> <20080101182742.GE3830@muc.de> <20080101.192802.05328072.wl@gnu.org> <20080103010807.GB13318@kobe.laptop> <85wsqqnfce.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199699003 16948 80.91.229.12 (7 Jan 2008 09:43:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:43:23 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 07 10:43:43 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JBoWE-0006Ea-0q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:43:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBoVr-0005mh-4h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:43:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JBoOV-00007l-QU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JBoOU-00006i-Kx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBoOU-00006U-Ay for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: from dusk.cs.uu.nl ([131.211.80.10] helo=mail.cs.uu.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JBoOT-0001KZ-VJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.cs.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625C5A3792 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:35:41 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from cochabamba.cs.uu.nl (cochabamba.cs.uu.nl [131.211.80.214]) by mail.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D7DA3739 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:35:41 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from cochabamba.cs.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cochabamba.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DBE7DA6B0 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:35:28 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sat\, 05 Jan 2008 09\:30\:10 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (darwin) X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP at cs.uu.nl X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:86451 Archived-At: >>>>> Richard Stallman (RS) wrote: >>> I don't think it makes sense to compare these two different "commit" >>> operations -- it's like comparing an apple to an orange tree branch. >>> If you compare applies with oranges instead, the difference is >>> much less. >RS> I think that the comparison is quite accurate: the commit does >RS> everything that a commit in CVS does. The difference in workflow >RS> is not in committing, it is in the fact that everybody has his own >RS> repository (and all of them are equal). >RS> I think that is a confusing way to compare them. >RS> It focuses on similarities in implementation >RS> rather than on similarities in use and role. In both cases committing means that you make a permanent record of the state of your workspace in the repository. The difference is that in CVS there is a central repository whereas in a DVC system each user has its own repository. In the latter case, if the developers want some central repository they have to designate one of them as the authoritative one. This is a social issue; AFAIK none of them has a provision to dedicate one of the repositories as the authoritative one. If you want your commits to migrate to the central repository you would do a push for that. So in a certain sense the push could count as a global commit. But this is certainly not the only possible workflow. -- Piet van Oostrum URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org