[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: server down?

From: Francisco Vila
Subject: Re: server down?
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:19:06 +0100

I am aware of the differences from our current system, but they are
not so big. Please continue reading:

2010/12/3 Colin Campbell <address@hidden>:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 15:24 +0100, Francisco Vila wrote:
>> Git is already distributed and all the eggs are not in one basket. Wit
>> git installed in your system, you have a repository server just like
>> that in GNU.  Gittorrent just removes restrictions on a centralised
>> management, which is more a political problem rather than technical.
>> LilyPond, like most projects, does have a central code repository and
>> a core development team: if we change that, we are talking about
>> another very different project.
> I see your point, Francisco, but the difference is this: we have a
> single server which is considered canonical;

It is considered canonical because we consider it canonical.  If it
were fully distributed, we still had to choose one as the canonical

> you and I have *copies* of
> the repo,

Not exact. Git are not files we just copy. Git already consists of
multiple servers, one for each local repo which you call "a copy".

> and we can do as we like to our local version.

I consider a good thing that I can do whatever I like to my local version.

> Others have no
> knowledge of the state of our repo.

Others should have knowledge of my repo?

>  When that single point of failure,
> the savannah server, goes offline, so does our definitive version of
> lilypond.

It is only definitive because we choose it to be.  That is our is
policy, not a technical problem.  If savannah becomes corrupted and I
trust on another repo more than in savannah's, what should be
considered definitive will move from savannah to that repo.

>  The trust comes from access to a single physical version of
> the source.

So called "copies" are _equivalent_ physical versions.  All commits
are signed, trust comes from the sha1 encryption.

> In a truly distributed, not just widely copied, VCS, the trust is based,
> for example, on credentials: only certain people can make changes,

Only certain people can already make changes, and that does not
prevent me from making changes on my local "copy".

> using
> some irrefutable signature.

Things already work that way.

> The changes are propagated in a torrent,

_That_ makes a difference.

> so
> the repository exists in its canonical form on many machines,

_that_ does not make a difference. It's already so.

> any one of
> which can be unavailable without compromising the whole.

The whole is already not compromised even if the central "copy" goes
offline.  Just we don't have a permanent server for others constantly
seeing our repos from outside world.  But when we push, there are no
differences between our repo and the remote.  That is why I say it's
more a matter of policy than technical. No centralised version,
everybody sees others' repos, that is another project as I previously
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) ,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]