D Programming Language source (dmd, phobos,etc.) has moved to github

[Don]

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:33:35 +0200, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think this is a fallacy. It only applies if you
>> (1) *completely disallow* any centralisation -- which I don't think 
>> ever happens in practice!
> 
> What about the Linux kernel? There's Linus's git repo, and lots of repos 
> maintained by others (e.g. Linux distros). The other distros are not a 
> superset of Linus's repo, they have their own branches with various 
> project-specific patches and backports. Git was written for this 
> specifically.

Yes, but each distro has a trunk, in which all commits are ordered by 
time. There's always an official version of every branch.

> 
>> and (2) demand that cloning a repository be an entirely read-only 
>> operation (so that the repository doesn't know how many times it has 
>> been cloned)
>> and (3) demand that the revision numbers behave exactly as they do in 
>> svn.
> 
> Then you're suggesting that the commit identifiers basically contain the 
> clone history?

Yes, I think it could be done that way. Identifier would be composed of 
clonenumber+commitnumber. Where it is the location of the original 
change. Yes, there are difficulties with this scheme, but I think they 
are the same challenges as for implementing merges on a centralised VCS 
such as Subversion. I don't think there's anything insurmountable.