On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:48:17PM +0100, Bryan Childs wrote: > 2) Unlike the Linux Kernel, which Linus uses as a prime example of > something git is very useful for, the Rockbox project has no central > figurehead for anyone to consider as owning the "master" repository > from which to build the "current" version of the Rockbox firmware for > any given target. > > 3) With a central repository, for which we have a limited number of > individuals having commit access, it's easy for us to automate a build > based on each commit the repository receives. You don't need to have a central figure. Like you were already answered, git worflow is supple, and you can use it in a good old-fashionned centralized way. Given that, what git allows though, is that it's really more straightforward for you to integrate irregular contributor's work: they just have to send the patch to someone that has commit rights, e.g. on the devel ML like it works for git or the linux kernel. Then git provides all the necessary tools to deal with that patch *very* easily. Then, committers with commit access to the central repository can push the patch. That's the 1:1 setup. Though, You'll soon learn (if you try it) that git is very addictive. It brings way more than the supple worflow (and Linus explains this in his talk very well): * it's fast. (no you don't get it, it's FAST, read it again and again). * it allow you to prepare your work in your repository and push only consistent patches. It does not always makes sense, but it's a thing that svn doesn't allow, hence git is superior. FWIW I'm among the many (according to Linus talk) developpers accross the world that use git at work, even if the company does not uses git. We use svn also, and well, I just can't stand svn anymore, and only use git-svn because at least, it improves my workflow, even if it still under use git. HTH -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [send email to madcoder@debian.org via gmail] madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org