| |||||||||||||
wish: better access controlwish: better access controlPosted Sep 18, 2005 14:26 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: wish: better access control by dann Parent article: Mercurial: an alternative to git I think the way to go in that case would be to have a "team leader" that picks the relevant changes from everyone and applies them to her own tree. So no need to have access control there. But maybe you are thinking of a different scenario.
(Log in to post comments)
wish: better access control Posted Sep 18, 2005 15:40 UTC (Sun) by dann (guest, #11621) [Link] Having a single leader that applies all the changes is simply NOT the waya lot of (probably most) software is developed. Allowing more that one person to make changes is very important.
wish: better access control Posted Sep 18, 2005 16:40 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is not how software is developed nowadays, but simply because we use the old paradigm of "single repository -- multiple branches". If we switched to a new distributed paradigm, where a developer publishes her changes and a leader imports them in order to make a version, these new tools would become indispensable. But don't you think that applying the old way of thinking to the new source management model would just add needless complexity?
|
|||||||||||||