[Vm-dev] a Cog branch

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 25.06.2010, at 21:11, Andreas Raab 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.
> 
> It is *not* desirable to fork.
> 
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

But it is desirable to being able to develop without having to ask anyone's permission. And to make it dead easy for these changes to be folded into the official version, if the gatekeeper chose to. That's what we have the inbox for - everybody is encouraged to use the same tool as the core developers, because that makes it easy to merge those contributions. Trusted developers work directly on the trunk of course. And that's what using a DCVS would allow for the VM too. It would allow me to use the same tool in my own development as the VM maintainers.

I really cannot understand your objection. Using git/hg with a centralized repository seems to me to be the best equivalent of the Monticello trunk/inbox model. Of course people could fork the trunk packages, in their own repositories. Having those clones visible right next to the mainline version would actually be desirable, and that's what services like github or bitbucket provide.

- Bert -