• Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> Jan 06 2011

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 I'm not sure I see how that's any different from everyone having "create and 
 submit a patch" rights, and then having Walter or one of the managers review 
 the changes and merge/patch with the main branch.


 I don't, either.


I actually founds some D repositories at github, not really up-to-date:

https://github.com/d-lang
https://github.com/braddr/dmd

Don't know who d-lang is, but they probably should have added some code. And it
would be better if Walter was managing it...

There are many benefits to the coder for using a distributed CMS. And you can
use git with SVN, but may run into other issues as pointed out by Don.

Now, if you add github or another social repository site, what you have is the
ability for anyone to public display their patches, merge in other's patches,
or demonstrate new features (tail const objects) which has a visible connection
to the main branch.

Then on top of that patches are submitted as a pull request:

http://help.github.com/pull-requests/

Which provides review of the changes, public visibility into the current
requests against the main branch.

The benefit to Walter or even the patch writer would not be great, but it
provides a lot of visibility to the observer. And using this model still allows
Walter control over every patch that comes into the main branch. But it will
make it 20x easier for those that want to build their own to roll in all
available patches. (aren't numbers with no data to back them great).

But the simplicity of branching for a distributed CMS definitely makes using
them much nicer than SVN.