Re: compiling cvsup broken on -current

[Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-11-04 03:20, walt wrote:
> Bill Hacker wrote:
> [...]
> > There may (eventually) be a better answer than rsync, but <whatever> 
> > must be low-hassle and 'good enough for now' with a bit of guidance 
> > and/or canned scripts - as rsync can be.
>
> I'd like to put in a word here for 'git', which should be familiar
> by now to anyone who follows the world of the linux kernel.
>
> 'git' is Linus's chosen 'bitkeeper' replacement for maintaining
> the linux kernel source tree.  ('bitkeeper' was the proprietary
> replacement for CVS that Linus used for a year or so before he
> choked on the licensing terms dictated by the 'bk' developer.)
>
> I've learned one helluvalot from following the git mailing list,
> even though I'm only a wannabe software developer myself.  The
> arguments Linus advances against the 'central source repository'
> model used by CVS are fascinating and IMHO quite logical.
>
> Linus cites political fights over the control of the central
> repository as the major reason to avoid CVS.  This, IIRC, is
> the reason that Our Fearless Leader left the linux project, and
> thereafter the FreeBSD project, to found his own DragonFly project.

I don't quite understand, what's the difference between having a 
decentralised repository and a centralised one when there is only one 
official version? And should someone wish to make an own branch all they 
have to do is download the whole repository and start making the changes 
they want (much like DF branced of from FBSD).

I also understand that the Linux development-model is a bit different 
from the BSD-model, might be wrong here but don't they have separate 
maintainers for different parts of the kernel who gets to descide what 
goes in and not. Or was that how it used to be? Anyway, my point is that 
different models have different requirements on the SCM.

--
Erik Wikström