Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-infrastructure-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 90928 invoked from network); 1 May 2008 18:32:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 May 2008 18:32:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 41492 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2008 18:32:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-infrastructure-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 41404 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2008 18:32:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list infrastructure-dev@apache.org Received: (qmail 41384 invoked by uid 99); 1 May 2008 18:32:25 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 May 2008 11:32:25 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.132.240] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.240) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 May 2008 18:31:40 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c24so260630ana.23 for ; Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.172.16 with SMTP id u16mr3484458ane.9.1209666712784; Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.47.14 with HTTP; Thu, 1 May 2008 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 20:31:52 +0200 From: "Sander Striker" To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org Subject: Re: [dSCM] Use case: infra down for maintenance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1209658387.5614.276.camel@marlow> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote: > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: [...] > > We do not want "peer to peer between developers" -- that is a violation of > > our development methodology, not a tool limitation. > > > > I'm just curious about this last statement. Aren't we all supposed to do > peer-to-peer review of each others' patches? We tend to use Jira to share > patches but I'm missing the fundamental difference in the process. There is a difference between peer-review, and doing development helped by a dSCM which exchanges changesets between cooperating peers. We want everything to flow through the main repository, "forcing" collaboration on one tree. Cheers, Sander