DVCS vs. Subversion brittleness (was Re: Moving to D)

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 16/02/2011 17:54, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
> 2011/2/16 Russel Winder<russel at russel.org.uk>:
>>
>> Definitely the case.  There can only be one repository that represents
>> the official state of a given project.  That isn't really the issue in
>> the move from CVCS systems to DVCS systems.
>>
> Just note that not all projects have a specific "state" to represent.
> Many projects are centered around the concept of a centralized
> project, a "core"-team, and all-around central organisation and
> planning. Some projects however, I guess the Linux kernel is a prime
> example, have been quite de-centralized even in their nature for a
> long time.
>
> In the case of KDE, for a centralized example, there is a definite
> "project version", which is the version currently blessed by the
> central project team. There is a centralized project planning,
> including meetings, setting out goals for the coming development.
>
> In the case of Linux, it's FAR less obvious. Sure, most people see
> master at torvalds/linux-2.6.git as THE Linux-version. However, there are
> many other trees interesting to track as well, such as the various
> distribution-trees which might incorporate many drivers not in
> mainline, especially for older stability-oriented kernels, RHEL or
> Debian is probably THE version to care about. You might also be
> interested in special-environment-kernels, such as non x86-kernels, in
> which case you're probably more interested in the central repo for
> that architecture, which is rarely Linuses. Also, IIRC, hard and soft
> realtime-enthusiasts neither looks at linuses tree first.
>
> Above all, in the Linux-kernel, there is not much of "centralised
> planning". Linus doesn't call to a big planning-meeting quarterly to
> set up specific milestones for the next kernel release, but in the
> beginning of each cycle, he is spammed with things already developed
> independently, scratching someones itch. He then cherry-picks the
> things that has got good reviews and are interesting for where he
> wants to go with the kernel. That is not to say that there aren't a
> lot of coordination and communication, but there isn't a clear
> centralized authority steering development in the same ways as in many
> other projects.
>
> The bottom line is, many projects, even ones using DVCS, are often
> centrally organized. However, the Linux kernel is clear evidence it is
> not the only project model that works.

Yeah, that's true. Some projects, the Linux kernel being one of the best 
examples, are more distributed in nature than not, in actual 
organizational terms. But projects like that are (and will remain) in 
the minority, a minority which is probably a very, very small.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer