[Vm-dev] a Cog branch

[Igor Stasenko]

Few more words.

I wanna repeat this one more time:
it is not technical issue. It is more political/organizational one.

Thunk having a single public repository, but it allows developers to
easily contribute to it.
In same way, i see a github as such meta-repository, which would allow
developers to easily contribute to VM development.

While technically, and strictly speaking, each user will have own fork,
but politically, it is not necessary so, and it is completely up to us
to decide and organize a process. Github is just a tool, which provides
a necessary infrastructure, in same way as MC does this for trunk.


On 25 June 2010 22:48, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 June 2010 22:11, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/25/2010 2:18 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe you have not developed using a distributed versioning system yet? A
>>> DCVS would be for the VM what the trunk process is for the Squeak image.
>>
>> But the trunk model is powerful because it is *centralized* and because it
>> *avoids* forking. Don't confuse the technical ability to fork with
>> *desirability*. What I hear people saying in this discussion is "oh, this
>> will be so great, we can all just fork like crazy". It is the attitude about
>> the desirability of forking that I object to.
>>
> I disagree.
> A trunk development model is decentralized!
> Think: Before that we got a release teams, which were much more
> centralized comparing to trunk.
> And release team was a major bottleneck and reason of dissatisfaction
> of many developers,
> who either leaved community (loss of man resources) or created own
> fork (split of man resources), such as Pharo.
>
> In any case, let make one thing clear: keeping things under strict
> control, and having all levers under your fingertips
> doesn't gives any guarantees that there will be no more forks. It is
> pointless and delusional.
>
> Once we removed this bottleneck and allowed a much wider range of
> developers to freely contribute to
> trunk, we got much faster development. And i feel that trunk model
> makes appearance of new forks much less
> probable than with release teams model. Correct me if i wrong.
>
> So, what i actually proposing is to do the same with VM. Nothing else!
> Currently the VM development is centralized and in direct control of
> few people.
> And the fact is, that these people simply don't have time to overlook
> of all activity around VM (i could quote
> your own reply in this thread), and also when there are few people
> who deciding, what to include and what not, the risk of strategic
> mistake is very high.
>
> I don't even want to mention that inability to deal with this
> bottleneck were the major reason why
> Pharo forked out from Squeak. Now, apply this situation to VM.
> Same case: in order to prevent a major forking, we should loose the
> control, and allow contribution
> in a masses. This is where github could play the same role as trunk does.
>
>> It is *not* desirable to fork.
>>
>
> Me too.
> And, obviously,  if you don't wanna forks to pop up, then you should
> put VM on github :)
>
> P.S. besides. Cog is a fork. So, how this complies with "It is *not*
> desirable to fork." ? ;)
>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.