- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:08:42 -0400
John Drinkwater wrote: > Just one comment on the Action: More Committers + Distributed Source > Control section, as it?s something I generally agree with. Good to know :) > Of course, you could do this today without anyones input, produce a > dvcs repo from svn, edit sections as you see fit, take changes from > other editors trees and provide diffs. Sure, we could do this today, but Subversion doesn't make it easy to manage this type of stuff. A DVCS, like git, allows this type of collaboration by design and without much need to do merge planning. Subversion is good - git (or Mercurial/Bazar) is better. It would be nice if WHAT WG would just switch over to git - what are the chances of that happening? I'd be happy to set it up and manage it if the community wants that functionality (git.whatwg.org). > The general problem is that these extra editors need to exist already > and furthermore not cause overhead for that main committer when they > do. I'd certainly use such a system, as I would hope that others on here would, if they knew their changes would be integrated. Tools would certainly be integrated, as would most examples, and tests -- changes to the spec would need to either go through Ian or one of the W3C editors. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 22:08:42 UTC