[Asterisk-Dev] benevolent dictatorship, or inclusive developper community?

[C. Maj]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Florian Overkamp waxed:

> Hi,
> 
> Citeren "C. Maj" <cmaj at freedomcorpse.info>:
> > They don't have to.  Only the developers who want to keep
> > their own branches would.  Their bleeding stuff could be
> > pushed back into Digium's repository, for example, and
> > run BK2CVS on it there for the masses.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I had been looking for ways to do exactly that (keeping 
> my own 'stable' tree that is somewhere between latest tarball and cvs, 
> possibly also containing a few evolving patches. Be it with CVS, SubVersion, 
> BitKeeper or whatever. Can you elaborate a little about how that should be 
> done ? 

In a perfect world, Digium would create an initial BitKeeper
repository from current CVS, and then everyone else would
"clone" that repository.  This would keep control in their
hands, which is probably preferred because of the licensing
situation and the need for disclaimers.

Cloning is similar to branching in CVS.  But if you make
several clones of a repository, you can assign them each
different levels, giving you what would be like -dev,
-stable, -bugfix, -personal, -home, -office1, etc., type of
branches.  Then to get changes from one branch into another,
say from -bugfix to -dev, you would change to the -dev
branch and issue a "pull" from the -bugfix branch.  Then a
graphical tool can let you cycle through conflicts.

However, I can't do the BK docs justice.  It's a commercial
project with open source allowances, but it's docs are
great.  I would suggest reading more on their site, as I am
by no means a BK expert, and I currently only use it in
simple clone mode.

--Chris


-- 

Chris Maj <cmaj_hat_freedomcorpse_hot_info>
Pronunciation Guide:  Maj == May
Fingerprint: 43D6 799C F6CF F920 6623  DC85 C8A3 CFFE F0DE C146