{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07\n📝 Original message:On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin\n\u003e commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.\n\u003e Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the\n\u003e patch. Game over.\n\u003e\n\u003e You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.\n\u003e That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given\n\u003e codebase.\n\nHmm, git repositories don't quite work like that. Instead, you should\nimagine everyone having a local copy of the git repository. Each\ndeveloper synchronizes their git repository with other developers.\nThey merge changes from specific remote branches that they have\nreceived. Each developer has their own branch and each developer is\nthe \"single decision maker\" for the artifact that they compile.\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507"}