* "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs @ 2007-04-29 23:20 Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 9:35 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-05-01 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-04-29 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git I have read lately classic book "Producing Open Source Software. How to Run a Successful Free Software Project" by Karl Fogel (2005). Among others, author advocates using version control system as a basis for running a project. In "Choosing a Version Contol System" he writes: As of this writing, the version control system of choice in the free software world is the Concurrent Versions System or CVS. Further on much of examples of managing project and managing volunteers revolves around the idea of "commit access", and it is assumed implicitely that version control system is centralized. It is understandable, as in 2005 there were (according to Linus) no good distributed version control systems (SCMs). Also Karl Fogel writes in preface that much of material came from the five years of working with the Subversion project, and Subversion is centralized SCM meant as "better CVS" and used itself as revision control system; any experience described had to be with centralized SCM. The distributed SCM is mentioned in footnote in section "Comitters" in Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers: http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#ftn.id284130 [22] Note that the commit access means something a bit different in decentralized version control systems, where anyone can set up a repository that is linked into the project, and give themselves commit access to that repository. Nevertheless, the concept of commit access still applies: "commit access" is shorthand for "the right to make changes to the code that will ship in the group's next release of the software." In centralized version control systems, this means having direct commit access; in decentralized ones, it means having one's changes pulled into the main distribution by default. It is the same idea either way; the mechanics by which it is realized are not terribly important. I'm interested in your experience with managing projects using distributed SCM, or even better first centralized then distributed SCM: is the above difference the only one? Linus has said that fully distributed SCM improves forkability: "Re: If merging that is really fast forwarding creates new commit" Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611070841580.3667@g5.osdl.org> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/31078 Time for some purely philosophical arguments on why it's wrong to have "special people" encoded in the tools: I think that "forking" is what keeps people honest. The _biggest_ downside with CVS is actually that a central repository gets so much _political_ clout, that it's effectively impossible to fork the project: the maintainers of a central repo have huge powers over everybody else, and it's practically impossible for anybody else to say "you're wrong, and I'll show how wrong you are by competing fairly and being better". According to "Producting Open Source Software" it is very important feature for an OSS project. See section "Forkability" of Chapter 4, Social and Political Infrastructure (beginning of chapter): http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#forkability The indispensable ingredient that binds developers together on a free software project, and makes them willing to compromise when necessary, is the code's _forkability_: the ability of anyone to take a copy of the source code and use it to start a competing project, known as a fork. The paradoxical thing is that the _possibility_ of forks is usually a much greater force in free software projects than actual forks, which are very rare. Because a fork is bad for everyone (for reasons examined in detail in the section called "Forks" in Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers, http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#forks), the more serious the threat of a fork becomes, the more willing people are to compromise to avoid it. Besides that, what are the differences between managing project using centralized SCM and one using distributed SCM? What is equivalent of committers, giving full and partial commit access, revoking commit access? How good support for tagging and branching influences creating code and build procedure? Is distributed SCM better geared towards "benovolent dictator" model than "consensus-based democracy" model, as described in OSSbook? Thanks in advance for all responses -- Jakub Narebski ShadeHawk on #git Poland ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-04-29 23:20 "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs Jakub Narebski @ 2007-05-01 9:35 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-05-01 15:23 ` Theodore Tso 2007-05-01 18:30 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds 1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-05-01 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git Hi, On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > I have read lately classic book "Producing Open Source Software. How to > Run a Successful Free Software Project" by Karl Fogel (2005). > > Among others, author advocates using version control system as a basis > for running a project. In "Choosing a Version Contol System" he writes: > > As of this writing, the version control system of choice in the free > software world is the Concurrent Versions System or CVS. Back then, it was. I ran all my projects on CVS. Then came along Git. I tried to keep up with it, but had to quit for day-job reasons. When I came back, Git was already so good that I switched almost everything over. > The distributed SCM is mentioned in footnote in section "Comitters" in > Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers: > > http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#ftn.id284130 > > [22] Note that the commit access means something a bit different in > decentralized version control systems, where anyone can set up a > repository that is linked into the project, and give themselves commit > access to that repository. Nevertheless, the concept of commit access > still applies: "commit access" is shorthand for "the right to make > changes to the code that will ship in the group's next release of the > software." In centralized version control systems, this means having > direct commit access; in decentralized ones, it means having one's > changes pulled into the main distribution by default. It is the same > idea either way; the mechanics by which it is realized are not > terribly important. > > > I'm interested in your experience with managing projects using > distributed SCM, or even better first centralized then distributed SCM: > is the above difference the only one? In my experience, the offline mode has been a huge advantage. For example, in one project I work together with people from three different countries, some of them traveling quite a bit. I sold Git solely on the transportability. One of them was so happy that he switched over most of his projects, too. BTW that is the common way I see: once people get hooked, they not only convert their existing projects to Git, but they use cvsimport a lot more, and they start to manage configuration settings, documents, pictures, etc. with Git, because it gives rise an easy backup mechanism. Another difference between central and distributed operation I see is the workflow. With Git, you can commit much more often. For example, when working with Sourceforge's CVS (which _was_ comparable with the speed of corporate SourceSafe repos), I would always think about committing (and having a coffee), or rather combine these changes with the next ones. Obviously, committing more often leads to a much nicer repository structure, making it much easier to get into the code for new developers. It also makes it easier to get at bugs. And because it is so much faster, you can actually do a "git diff" before committing, to make sure that you did not leave in that stupid debug statement. > Linus has said that fully distributed SCM improves forkability: > > [...] > > I think that "forking" is what keeps people honest. The _biggest_ > downside with CVS is actually that a central repository gets so much > _political_ clout, that it's effectively impossible to fork the > project: [...] > > According to "Producting Open Source Software" it is very important > feature for an OSS project. > > [...] > > Because a fork is bad for everyone (for reasons examined in detail in > the section called "Forks" in Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers, > http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#forks), the more serious the > threat of a fork becomes, the more willing people are to compromise to > avoid it. This is a lousy argument, IMHO. Why are forks bad? They are not. But if you "learnt" that merges are hard, they are. It is a pity that so many people were trained in CVS, and keep thinking some of the lectures were true, when they are no longer. Forks are good. In fact, we all "forked" with CVS as soon as we began hacking. Everybody who claims to never have started over from a fresh checkout, or from an "update -C"ed state, is probably lying, or a bad developer. Thinking about it, I believe that the difference between forking and branching is philosophical, not technical. You can always merge a fork. And the thing is, you would not start hacking on some obscure feature, if that happened completely in the open, for fear of being accused a complete moron. With CVS, that meant that you tried to get at a stage where others could see that it was worth doing, before committing. Which makes for monster commits. ("The number of bugs is the _square_ of the number of changed lines.") With Git, that problem is virtually not there. > Besides that, what are the differences between managing project using > centralized SCM and one using distributed SCM? What is equivalent of > committers, giving full and partial commit access, revoking commit > access? I have to admit that I drive one of my projects "CVS" style, with SSH accounts for all developers, who push into the same repo. But that worked quite well up to now. If I _had_ to restrict them, I'd probably do that by (temporarily) assigning a release engineer, and setting up some hook scripts in all repos. But I don't believe in restriction when it comes to creativity. > How good support for tagging and branching influences creating > code and build procedure? > Is distributed SCM better geared towards "benovolent dictator" model > than "consensus-based democracy" model, as described in OSSbook? Not at all. I think the best example is kernel.org, where you find tons of forks. IMHO it is really helping the benevolent dictator cave into the consensus-based model, since forks can be preferred at any time. Hey, even switching from one to another upstream is just a git-pull away! Ciao, Dscho ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-05-01 9:35 ` Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-05-01 15:23 ` Theodore Tso 2007-05-01 15:45 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-05-01 18:30 ` Jakub Narebski 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Theodore Tso @ 2007-05-01 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Jakub Narebski, git On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > [...] > > > > Because a fork is bad for everyone (for reasons examined in detail in > > the section called "Forks" in Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers, > > http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#forks), the more serious the > > threat of a fork becomes, the more willing people are to compromise to > > avoid it. > > This is a lousy argument, IMHO. > > Why are forks bad? They are not. But if you "learnt" that merges are hard, > they are. > > It is a pity that so many people were trained in CVS, and keep thinking > some of the lectures were true, when they are no longer. > > Forks are good. In fact, we all "forked" with CVS as soon as we began > hacking. Everybody who claims to never have started over from a fresh > checkout, or from an "update -C"ed state, is probably lying, or a bad > developer. Thinking about it, I believe that the difference between > forking and branching is philosophical, not technical. You can always > merge a fork. There's a confusion going on here between a "fork" meaning a branch in the SCM sense of the word, and a "Project Fork" where there are two camps competing for developers and users. So for example, having kerenl developers develop using branches which are then merged into the -mm tree and then into Linus tree --- Good. In the suspend-to-disk world, where we have *three* separate implementations, with two in the mainline tree, and one very popular one, suspend2, with features that niether of the in-mainline implementations have, and with Pavel constantly casting aspersions at Nigel because he's splitting the development effort --- Not So Good. I prefer to use the term "branch" to talk about a SCM and development series, and to use the term "fork" to talk about the political/project issues. So for example, even though Ingo Molnar's CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patchset has been a very long-running thing, it is constantly getting rebased against the kernel, and there is no expectation that this would replace the mainline kernel. That makes a code branch, and not a fork. So my suggestion is to let branches be branches, and to reserve fork for when there is an attempt to compete for developer and user attention. That is more or less the general understanding of the two terms, and trying to confuse the two only leads to confusion and a general muddying of the waters. Regards, - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-05-01 15:23 ` Theodore Tso @ 2007-05-01 15:45 ` Johannes Schindelin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-05-01 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Jakub Narebski, git Hi, On Tue, 1 May 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Forks are good. In fact, we all "forked" with CVS as soon as we began > > hacking. Everybody who claims to never have started over from a fresh > > checkout, or from an "update -C"ed state, is probably lying, or a bad > > developer. Thinking about it, I believe that the difference between > > forking and branching is philosophical, not technical. You can always > > merge a fork. > > There's a confusion going on here between a "fork" meaning a branch in > the SCM sense of the word, and a "Project Fork" where there are two > camps competing for developers and users. So you agree! I said that it is a philosophical, and not a technical issue. > So for example, having kerenl developers develop using branches which > are then merged into the -mm tree and then into Linus tree --- Good. > In the suspend-to-disk world, where we have *three* separate > implementations, with two in the mainline tree, and one very popular > one, suspend2, with features that niether of the in-mainline > implementations have, and with Pavel constantly casting aspersions at > Nigel because he's splitting the development effort --- Not So Good. But why! Because Pavel is just ignoring reality. I always wondered why the work of Nigel was never considered for inclusion, even if it was clearly superiour from a usability view point. And if it is usable, but not clean, then clean it up. Instead, Pavel seems to never even have considering casting his planet sized ego aside and admit that his work is just not up to par with Nigel's, and start to clean up suspend2. So in that case, I am even _more_ happy that forking is so easy, because I did not _have_ to suffer all that much from people who cannot enter my flat because their head does not fit through the door, but I could just happily use suspend2 and be fine. BTW the same goes for Reiser4, which is quite fast and flexible, and I do not care at all about the ardent discussions around it. > I prefer to use the term "branch" to talk about a SCM and development > series, and to use the term "fork" to talk about the political/project > issues. So for example, even though Ingo Molnar's CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > patchset has been a very long-running thing, it is constantly getting > rebased against the kernel, and there is no expectation that this would > replace the mainline kernel. That makes a code branch, and not a fork. I refuse to get involved in such a sophistic (not to be confused with sophisticated) discussion. I am _only_ interested in the technical side. Philosophical discussions, while fun when not taken too seriously, _can_ take all the fun out for me when the participants get too religious about their beliefs. So please, keep me out of them. Ciao, Dscho ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-05-01 9:35 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-05-01 15:23 ` Theodore Tso @ 2007-05-01 18:30 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-05-01 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: git Hi On Thursday, 1 May 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > >> Linus has said that fully distributed SCM improves forkability: >> >> [...] >> >> I think that "forking" is what keeps people honest. The _biggest_ >> downside with CVS is actually that a central repository gets so much >> _political_ clout, that it's effectively impossible to fork the >> project: [...] >> >> According to "Producting Open Source Software" it is very important >> feature for an OSS project. >> >> [...] >> >> Because a fork is bad for everyone (for reasons examined in detail in >> the section called "Forks" in Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers, >> http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#forks), the more serious the >> threat of a fork becomes, the more willing people are to compromise to >> avoid it. > > This is a lousy argument, IMHO. > > Why are forks bad? They are not. But if you "learnt" that merges are hard, > they are. > > It is a pity that so many people were trained in CVS, and keep thinking > some of the lectures were true, when they are no longer. > > Forks are good. In fact, we all "forked" with CVS as soon as we began > hacking. Everybody who claims to never have started over from a fresh > checkout, or from an "update -C"ed state, is probably lying, or a bad > developer. Thinking about it, I believe that the difference between > forking and branching is philosophical, not technical. You can always > merge a fork. IIRC Compiz and Beryl (fork of Compiz) plan to be merged. Both projects use git as SCM. We will see how this "merge a fork" will work. In "Producting Open Source Software" Karl Fogel gives an example of GCC/EGCS fork, which resulted in "fast forward" merge (EGCS which was fork of GCC, became next version of GCC). Similar example is XFree86/X.Org fork; Linux distributions went from packaging XFree86 to packaging X.Org. But for example GNU Emacs / XEmacs fork will never be merged, I think. So not always you can merge a fork - you can try, unless codebase diverged too much. >> Is distributed SCM better geared towards "benovolent dictator" >> model than "consensus-based democracy" model, as described in >> OSSbook? > > Not at all. I think the best example is kernel.org, where you find > tons of forks. IMHO it is really helping the benevolent dictator cave > into the consensus-based model, since forks can be preferred at any > time. Hey, even switching from one to another upstream is just a > git-pull away! What is or is not a fork is a bit blurry in the world of distributed version control systems. Is a clone of repository a fork? I think that everybody would agree that it is not. Is for example *-mm tree a fork? I'd say not. But I'd say that Beryl is a fork of Compiz... -- Jakub Narebski ShadeHawk on #git Poland ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-05-01 18:30 ` Jakub Narebski @ 2007-05-01 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2007-05-01 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin, git On Tue, 1 May 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > In "Producting Open Source Software" Karl Fogel gives an example of > GCC/EGCS fork, which resulted in "fast forward" merge (EGCS which was > fork of GCC, became next version of GCC). The egcs fork was a total disaster, and a big part of that was CVS and the tight control of the gcc tree. It took _years_ for people to get so fed up with the gcc maintenance that the egcs tree happened at all, and it was a prime example of how *painful* CVS makes this, and how it allowed the gcc maintainers to do a really bad job, and ignore a whole lot of major problems simply because the whole gcc setup was so hard to get into. So yes, the egcs fork is a great example. It was not only a required (and very good) fork, but it is _also_ an example of a setup where all the infrastructure made the fork take a lot longer to materialize and be a lot more painful than it should have been. > But for example GNU Emacs / XEmacs fork will never be merged, I think. > So not always you can merge a fork - you can try, unless codebase diverged > too much. In all honesty, I don't think any tools would help there. Git can make merging easier, but it cannot solve the fundamental differences in personality and it can't help with ten years of differences. Git tries to make merging easy by making it happen all the time, and thus the git merge capability really depend on changing the *model*. But git cannot really help you all that much if you have a decade of split, and the codebases just don't look similar any more.. (Not entirely true: git obviously does make merging easier, since people have piped up to say that they imported branches from SVN just to merge them in git and push the result back to SVN. So git _does_ help on the pure technical side too, but I think the even more important part is how git tries to encourage the model to be that one or both sides just merge often enough that the merges _stay_ easy). > What is or is not a fork is a bit blurry in the world of distributed > version control systems. Is a clone of repository a fork? I think that > everybody would agree that it is not. Is for example *-mm tree a fork? > I'd say not. But I'd say that Beryl is a fork of Compiz... Well, the -mm tree is a fork, but perhaps the difference is that the _intention_ is to merge back. We've had "real forks" in the kernel community too. Vendor branches for a while tended to be real forks - not because the vendors didn't want to merge back, but simply because they didn't have the capability and commitment to do so. That's changed, partly because 2.4->2.6 was so painful for some of them. And the VM people have had real forks. The -aa tree wasa real fork in the 2.4.x timeframe. So I think the reason kernel people don't really think about "-mm" as a fork is that we've tended to be pretty amicable about the forks, whatever the intention was. I personally encourage them, for example, in ways that most other bigger open source projects do not. That makes it easier psychologically to fork, but more importantly, it also makes it easier to join back again, because there was generally no hard feelings, just differences of opinion on technical matters that didn't get to be _too_ personal. So to _me_, the big issue is not so much forking, but joining it all back (ie merging). Forking should be trivial, and not even worthy of any real discussion. It should be a daily event, and sure, you'd expect the small forks to heavily outnumber the big ones, but none of that really matters if you just consider forking to not be a big deal - and always realize that joining back is where the interesting stuff happens! Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-04-29 23:20 "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 9:35 ` Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-05-01 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-05-01 22:27 ` Jakub Narebski 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2007-05-01 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > Among others, author advocates using version control system as a basis > for running a project. In "Choosing a Version Contol System" he writes: > > As of this writing, the version control system of choice in the free > software world is the Concurrent Versions System or CVS. Well, I actually personally suspect that the original Linux method of "patches + tar-balls" is a perfectly valid method of source control management, and in many ways preferable over CVS. So no, I don't think using a version control system should be the _basis_ of running a project. Version control comes pretty far down the list, long long after "good taste" and "willingness to do things rather than talk about them", the latter of which tends to kill more hypothetical projects than even CVS has ever done. The _basis_ of an open source project is a good manager, a good idea, and a realization that what matters most is _using_ the end result, rather than the idea or discussions or "cool features". The SCM becomes relevant only once you are far enough along that tar-balls and patches really don't work, and that might well take years. [ I'm really serious: I think a lot of the good practices that the kernel project has gotten is exactly because of the "patches rule" mentality. We now use real revision control, but I really *really* believe that pushing patches around is a much better way of managing stuff than with CVS or any other centralized model, because in the centralized model it always ends up being about the "core team". In contrast, even if there is a core team, if they just push patches around and discuss them as such, non-core-team members are automatically basically all equal. And avoiding the politics, and avoiding the "five people are special" mentality is a *lot* more important than the limited and broken tracking capabilities that CVS brings to the table. So maybe I'm just in denial, but I really believe that the fact that the kernel was basically maintained _without_ an SCM for a decade was actually a *good* thing, considering the alternatives. ] > Further on much of examples of managing project and managing volunteers > revolves around the idea of "commit access", and it is assumed > implicitely that version control system is centralized. Karl Fogel is wrong. It's an understandable mistake to do, since commit access is so important in a centralized environment, and he probably has never used anything else (even decentralized SCM's are often _used_ as centralized ones), but he's still *wrong*. Fundamentally so: > The distributed SCM is mentioned in footnote in section "Comitters" in > Chapter 8, Managing Volunteers: > > http://producingoss.com/producingoss.html#ftn.id284130 > > [22] Note that the commit access means something a bit different in > decentralized version control systems, where anyone can set up a > repository that is linked into the project, and give themselves commit > access to that repository. Nevertheless, the concept of commit access > still applies: "commit access" is shorthand for "the right to make > changes to the code that will ship in the group's next release of the > software." In centralized version control systems, this means having > direct commit access; in decentralized ones, it means having one's > changes pulled into the main distribution by default. It is the same > idea either way; the mechanics by which it is realized are not > terribly important. That's just making excuses. Yes, you can use the same words, and say that you call the two TOTALLY DIFFERENT things "commit access", and then, because you've made two totally different things use the same term, you claim that it's the same thing, and the differences aren't "terribly important". It's like saying that a distributed (or threaded, for that matter) algorithm and a linear algorithm both result in the same result, so the "mechanics" of the algorithm are not terribly relevant: they're both algorithms. Anybody who has ever done any distributed algorithms realizes that the mechanichs are *hugely* important. The difference between a distributed situation and a centralized one is absolutely humongous. It changes literally everything. Does the fact that you *can* run a distributed algorithm on one machine make it the same? No. Does the fact that the end result is called the same make the two the same? No. It's a totally different model, and they share almost none of the issues. When it comes to "commit access", not only is the term nonsensical in a distributed environment, even if you want to use that term to describe the notion of "gets pulled into the next release", it's not even TRUE. People like Andrew, Ingo, and Davem have what Karl would probably call "commit access". Andrew and Ingo have it even though they don't actually even use git to synchronize with me. But no, they don't actually get pulled into the next release by default _anyway_ - there's always a conscious choice after the fact, rather than any implicit permission. I quite often tell maintainers that I won't pull their stuff, simply because the changes look too scary, and I'm too close to a release. Yes, it happens less often than me just silently pulling it, but that's not a sign of "commit access", that's a sign of the fact that the process _works_ in the first place. If we spent all our time arguing about it, and people didn't just "know" how to behave, we'd never get anything done. So that "get pulled by default" has _nothing_ to do with commit access, and everything to do with much higher-level process issues. And it's something that distributed development makes _possible_ in a way that the centralized model with "commit access" simply does not. Miles and miles apart. And a very important distinction. (Btw, I'll argue that it's really important inside companies too, even when the source control in question is "controlled". When you do things like validation, you shouldn't just allow "commit access" to the tree to be validated. The validation group should maintain a tree that *they* control, and getting things accepted into their tree should be just one step on a "release schedule") > Linus has said that fully distributed SCM improves forkability: Yes. There's two issues to forkability: - all real development happens as "micro-forks", and so you should make that easy, whether it's an "inside" developer or somebody else who just has a wild and crazy idea that might just work. - all real _honesty_ comes from a belief that the code *can* be forked, and that even the original developer and/or top maintainer cannot force his world-view on anybody. Both of these are important, but the latter is important not because it should be the "normal case", but just because the _knowledge_ that a fork can happen should keep people honest. Big forks due to fundmanetal personality clashes (they are sometimes about technology, but even when they are ostensibly about technology issues, they are often very much about strong personal ideas about that technology) are painful. But they should be painful not because of the SCM in question, but simply because handling personality issues is inherently painful. The SCM shouldn't allow people to be a*-holes and control freaks. And I think Karl Fogel agrees with me on that. When he says .. the more serious the threat of a fork becomes, the more willing people are to compromise to avoid it. he's right on the money, and I _think_ he meant it in the good way (compromise and trying to work with people is absolutely a _must_). > Besides that, what are the differences between managing project using > centralized SCM and one using distributed SCM? What is equivalent of > committers, giving full and partial commit access, revoking commit > access? So here's what happens for the kernel: - we simply don't *have* commit access - there's no "partial", and there's not "revoking" - there are people I trust, but I don't trust them implicitly in the sense that I give them the keys to my repository. If they go crazy, there's nothing to revoke. NOTHING. If they go crazy, I just don't pull from them. It's really rhat easy! - there are people I trust in certain areas, but that doesn't mean that they can't make changes everywhere. It just means that I won't pull unless I see that the changes are only to those areas. And again, it's not an "up-front" decision: when people ask me to pull, they tell me (by way of a diffstat) what they changed, and I can - and actually do this, although mostly because it avoids mistakes - verify it, because the pull always tells me what got changed. - In fact, what happens occasionally is that I pull something, and tell people "nope, that won't do" and just discard their changes. It doesn't happen every day, but it happened yesterday - David Miller (who is one of the top developers) sent me a fix, I fetched it and told him it was incomplete and I wouldn't pull until it was fixed. Notice? No partial commit access, no revoking, no granting. No politics. No up-front "you have rights". Just a very basic issue: trust. And the nice thing about this is that if some subsystem needs to make trivial changes to another subsystem, they don't need to ask for permission. They just do them, AND THEN THEY EXPLAIN THEM! And if they really were trivial and obvious (and that's almost always the case), they just get pulled normally. No special dispensation. This is somethign that a centralized repository with commit access fundamentally *cannot* do! If a maintainer who has partial commit access needs to fix something else in order to make his subtree work, he's basically screwed. He cannot commit his changes to *his* area, just because they depend on a fix to another persons area, and he cannot commit that. Centralized SCM's are *fundamentally* broken. And the whole "commit access" is very much part of that breakage. A distributed system doesn't have it, doesn't need it, and is much much better off without it! This is why I said Karl was totally off when he said that there's an equivalent to "commit access" in a distributed system too. It's just not true. Everything that people use "commit access" for just entirely goes away! > How good support for tagging and branching influences creating > code and build procedure? Is distributed SCM better geared towards > "benovolent dictator" model than "consensus-based democracy" model, as > described in OSSbook? I think branching is so fundamnetal to being distributed, that asking whether good support for something like that is important for build procedure is just not a valid question. It's like asking "How important is water to your social life?" It's supremely important in the sense that without water, you wouldn't have a social life, but that's because you wouldn't _exist_ in the first place. But does that make water _directly_ important to your social life? Probably not, unless your life revolves around playing water polo with your buddies. Same goes for the benevolent dictator vs consensus-based model. I think the distributed setup has advantages for both, and the advantages are much more fundamental than anything direct. You can use distributed for either model, and in both cases, the tools a distributed system gives you are just different (and much better). Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-05-01 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2007-05-01 22:27 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-05-01 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: git Linus Torvalds wrote: > And the nice thing about this is that if some subsystem needs to make > trivial changes to another subsystem, they don't need to ask for > permission. They just do them, AND THEN THEY EXPLAIN THEM! And if they > really were trivial and obvious (and that's almost always the case), they > just get pulled normally. No special dispensation. Actually Karl Fogel wrote in "Producting Open Source Software" that he recommends and uses 'soft' partial commit access; it means that committing is restricted to a part of project for some by a guideline, but is not enforced by the tool (by SCM). P.S. I recommend actually reading the book (at http://producingoss.com) instead of relying on my understanding of it. -- Jakub Narebski ShadeHawk on #git Poland ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs 2007-05-01 22:27 ` Jakub Narebski @ 2007-05-01 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2007-05-01 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > Actually Karl Fogel wrote in "Producting Open Source Software" that he > recommends and uses 'soft' partial commit access; it means that committing > is restricted to a part of project for some by a guideline, but is not > enforced by the tool (by SCM). Oh, absolutely. Except that really does require a lot of trust up front, which is the problem with commit access to begin with - you automatically have a very clear (and *big*) difference between insiders and outsiders, and there is no "gradual" way to move from one to the other. So yes, for practical reasons, "commit access" really is almost always an all-or-nothing thing for most centralized setups, because nothing else really works. And when it isn't, it's just a horrible horrible pain in the *ss. What people do instead of commit access is to set up triggers to notify people about certain subsystems being modified. Which is a good idea, but it's really a totally different thing. > P.S. I recommend actually reading the book (at http://producingoss.com) > instead of relying on my understanding of it. It actually looks like a fine book, even though I think Karl is totally off in not seeing the big difference between centralized and distributed. I saw it at the local Borders, and considered buying it. I didn't even realize that it apparently is downloadable too. And it talks about a lot of other things than just SCM's. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-05-01 23:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-04-29 23:20 "Producting Open Source Software" book and distributed SCMs Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 9:35 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-05-01 15:23 ` Theodore Tso 2007-05-01 15:45 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-05-01 18:30 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-05-01 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-05-01 22:27 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-05-01 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).