| |||||||||||||
GNOME considers DVCS choicesGNOME considers DVCS choicesPosted Jan 20, 2009 13:30 UTC (Tue) by whacker (guest, #55546)In reply to: GNOME considers DVCS choices by kevinbsmith Parent article: GNOME considers DVCS choices
I have helped companies migrate from VSS to Svn.
Of all the features that I needed to demonstrate, the one thing the users (read: managers) wanted most was: restriction of commit access to specific folders in the same project! There was this strange fear that people would 'accidentally' commit to parts of the code they were not supposed to!
No amount of me convincing them that neither locking nor permissions were really meaningful in a version controlled system made any headway.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME considers DVCS choices Posted Jan 20, 2009 21:27 UTC (Tue) by jlokier (guest, #52227) [Link]
How are permissions not meaningful?
Sure, everyone's work is in the version history *somewhere*.
But it's easy to slip in a change which persists without anyone noticing, if there are hundreds or thousands of commits a week.
Changes to some code should be reviewed by people closely affiliated with that code, and permissions are helpful for ensuring that review does happen.
Permissions aren't the only way to ensure a particular workflow. Maybe triggers could flag when changes are made be people who aren't in a pre-approved list for a particular subsystem. Allowing changes and sorting out the conflicts afterwards are more in keeping with modern VCS methodology.
|
|||||||||||||