Re: [SCRIPT] cg-rpush & locking

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Jun 2, 2005, 19:12 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0506021452030.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0506020741480.1876@ppc970.osdl.org>

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> The real reason I'd prefer to not do locking is that _if_ the remote tree
> is actually more than just a CVS-like "public repository", ie if somebody
> actually does _development_ in the remote tree (hey, it may be crazy, but
> git makes this usage pattern possible), then we should eventually plan on
> having all of the regular "git-commit-script" and "git-pull-script" etc
> _also_ do locking, since they also change HEAD.

It might be okay to have a single tree to which is applied patches from emails sent by non-maintainers, pulls from non-maintainers with accessible repositories, and pushes from home repositories of maintainers. It makes sense to deal well with different ways to get refined commits into the public repository. Of course, you probably don't want to carry out merges there, so the cases where pull or commit loses the race are quite different; you want to throw it back to the author for rebasing.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*