| |||||||||||||
LCA: Disintermediating distributionsLCA: Disintermediating distributionsPosted Feb 7, 2008 18:20 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)In reply to: LCA: Disintermediating distributions by bronson Parent article: LCA: Disintermediating distributions
So I gather you also disapprove of the fact that some projects are hosted in SourceForge, Berlios.de and Google-Code, right? As for Bazzar: It is a distributed version control system. Hence if you happen to have an up-to-date copy of the repository of project FooBar that is hosted on EvilBazzarServer and a moment later the owner of EvilBazzarServer decides to shut it down, you still have a copy of FooBar. Complete with the history. And you can start your own repository. (And for the record: I personally avoid using LaunchPad until they keep to their words of releasing it)
(Log in to post comments)
LCA: Disintermediating distributions Posted Feb 7, 2008 19:50 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Erm, SourceForge and BerliOS are open source. Google code, maybe... But Google doesn't present itself as a paragon of openness the way Canonical does, so I don't really find Google's behavior surprising. As for Bazaar, that's exactly my point! Why is Canonical so aware of the benefits of distributing source code, yet so ignorant about the benefits distributing bugs? It's truly baffling.
LCA: Disintermediating distributions Posted Feb 7, 2008 21:04 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] SourceForge used to be free software. GForge (e.g: GNU Savannah) is based on that. Berlios.de is based on an older version of that, but IIRC they don't publish its source with the various adjustments they made there. As for distributed bug-tracking system: I'm not sure this can actually work well. How do you merge the comment I have added to the bug and the comment you have added to the bug? And if I also closed that bug?
LCA: Disintermediating distributions Posted Feb 7, 2008 21:17 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] "How do you merge the comment I have added to the bug and the comment you have added to the bug? And if I also closed that bug?" Isn't this the same problem as decentralized revision control? :-)
LCA: Disintermediating distributions Posted Feb 7, 2008 21:50 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Threading of bug report comment threads, with individual thread termini having their own closedness state, branchpoints inheriting the closedness state of their downstream termini, and the bug as a whole marked as closed when all termini are closed or when the owner closes it... ... well, I can dream, can't I? Anyway, it's only a bit more than what threaded newsreaders were doing in 1988.
LCA: Disintermediating distributions Posted Feb 7, 2008 23:01 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Apart from the coolness factor, can you give any practical advantages? What I read from your description is that when you submit a bug report you really can't be sure about its state. Until it got merged by "upstream". So reporting bugs becomes more time consuming.
LCA: Disintermediating distributions Posted Feb 7, 2008 23:10 UTC (Thu) by graydon (subscriber, #5009) [Link] Yeah. I initially meant to support storing and associating bugs and test-cases / test-run-states inside monotone databases, transferring them around with revs etc; the crypto stuff in there was to support independent quality auditing. I think it's viable, it just needs time and energy. Never got around to it. Getting the software itself right was hard enough!
|
|||||||||||||