Re: compiling cvsup broken on -current

[walt <wa1ter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Erik Wikström wrote:
> On 2005-11-04 03:20, walt wrote:

[...]
> > Linus cites political fights over the control of the central
> > repository as the major reason to avoid CVS.

> 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).

DragonFly is still a small project, so the distributed repository
would be a minor factor at this point.  With any luck, however, it
will become important in the future :o)  But at the moment, DFly
would be well rid of cvsup and rsync, which is really why I posted
(although my point got a bit lost, I admit).

> 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.

There is no 'the kernel' in linux, there are multiple versions in
active development.  Linus merges the parts of them he likes into
his own personal tree, but in no way is his tree 'The Kernel' in
the BSD sense.  He guides the project only because people respect his
abilities, not because he keeps the central repository -- and that
is very much the way he wants it to stay.

> Anyway, my point is that 
> different models have different requirements on the SCM.

True.  Linus's point is that the SCM often determines a project's
development model.  Forcing a developer to fork his own project is
one important example of what he means by that.