At Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:45:44 +0200, Johnny Billquist <bqt%update.uu.se@localhost> wrote: Subject: Re: cvs better than git? > > Something done on your local repository is not truly committed to > start with. And it should be run through unit tests and so on, on the > central repository, before being committed to the central repository. Actually that's not true, for any DVCS. The hash that identifies a commit remains the same no matter where or when it is pushed or pulled, and of course if the hash doesn't change then neither does the code. Once you have a commit-ID you know _exactly_ what you have in every file and in every directory of the working tree, no matter where you take it. So with a DVCS of any kind you have to learn to distinguish between various sources of various kinds of authority. In most any DVCS, I think, and certainly in Git, it is easy to set up a process that strictly implements a review process such that what ends up on an authoritative branch in an authoritative repository (e.g. "trunk" in the main project's primary repository on a central Git server) has been fully tested and fully reviewed by as many people as required, yet it should have the same commit-ID as it did when it was first committed to some developer's repository on whatever machine they were on when they completed it (there may be another node or two on the DAG to account for merges, but the original node represents the code exactly as it was on that final commit). -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods%acm.org@localhost> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods%robohack.ca@localhost> Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> Avoncote Farms <woods%avoncote.ca@localhost>
Attachment:
pgphblihxwOMn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature