1 |
Steve Long wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Please note, I'm not talking about applications like portage or pkgcore, |
5 |
> just the ebuild text files, which I understand have one maintainer? |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
Many ebuilds are in maintained by a bunch of people via herds. |
9 |
|
10 |
> |
11 |
> I appreciate that source control is needed to maintain files over a period |
12 |
> of time and to roll back changes. Does that happen with ebuilds? |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
Rolling back changes does not happen that often but a history is useful. |
16 |
|
17 |
> |
18 |
> I'm thinking in any case that a db app can save old revisions or use a svn |
19 |
> backend. I'm looking at this from a workflow perspective, in terms |
20 |
> especially of the security issue around giving commit access to the whole |
21 |
> tree. If the individual maintainer only has permission for those ebuilds |
22 |
> s/he is responsible for, it might make it easier to allow new people write |
23 |
> access. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
I fail to see any benefit from a layer above svn. svn has good access |
27 |
control if we want use that built in. |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
> Sorry if this has all been discussed before. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
Most likely the access control has been discusses some times before. To |
34 |
summarize having access to everything is quite useful. |
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> (Please note: I'm not discussing the mechanisms by which software might be |
38 |
> installed for the end-user, rather the back-end which you devs use, of |
39 |
> which I admittedly have no experience.) |
40 |
> |
41 |
|
42 |
So please let people who actually use/know how source control work |
43 |
discuss the issue. |