rich1.0npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpghttps://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpgnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07 📝 Original message:On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin > commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers. > Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the > patch. Game over. > > You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't. > That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given > codebase. Hmm, git repositories don't quite work like that. Instead, you should imagine everyone having a local copy of the git repository. Each developer synchronizes their git repository with other developers. They merge changes from specific remote branches that they have received. Each developer has their own branch and each developer is the "single decision maker" for the artifact that they compile. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507