Could you give us some details about this so we can try to fix it for you and for others? In theorie it should just work if you have gtksourceview-2.0 < 2.2 installed.

Yes, there’s obviously meant to be restrictions about who can easily get things into tarballs with minimal review. For the rest, easy branches are useful, like I said.

I like what git (and similar) can add to our processes to make people’s live easier. I don’t like the irrational tendency to use their adoption as an excuse to break perfectly good processes.

Good points :/ I wonder why so few people are interested in helping out with being sysadmins. This certainly wasn’t intended as a knock to the sysadmin team, who are doing a fine job under difficult circumstances.

And I wasn’t proposing anything. I’m just asking
1) whether it would get us the (perceived) benefits of DVCS faster and stop this argument if we didn’t all have to change at the same time to the same thing, and
2) whether the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages of being all in the same place on the same system.

I didn’t think I’d heard these point answered yet. I’m certainly not proposing any solutions.

Regarding account process problems: More time spend on some stuff, means the accounts process will not get fixed. As well as a bunch of other stuff. Oh well.

I understand your first paragraph, but your second is confusing to me. It’s certainly true that “certain people do need to directly commit to the one official version of the code”, but:

1) does that mean that the certain people should be chosen by a centralised group? I know I’ve had times, when the relevant people were busy, when we’ve had Metacity contributors waiting weeks for check-in rights. The maintainers presumbly know who should or shouldn’t be trusted in that instance. (On the flip side of the coin, you, for example, can commit random things to Metacity merely through having commit rights on a different project, although of course you don’t because that would be rude.)

2) it would be solved if there was a centralised place to have repositories. If people want to have $DVCS so much, let them maintain the infrastructure for it. GNOME maintainers generally *already* have shell accounts (on master, for making releases), and the sky hasn’t fallen; I can imagine another host existing which was for pushing bzr+ssh: and so on onto, and having some way of having their repo visible over http for everyone else. *handwaves*

It’s a huge advantage for account management. Getting write access is so beaurocratic for every repository (gnome.org, gstreamer.org, freedesktop.org for cairo, o-hand.org for clutter, etc), and will likely remain so, that it’s very convenient having everything in one place.

I know the standard response is that DVCS makes it unnecessary to have write access to the main repository. But that’s wrong, no matter how often people say it. Certain people do need to directly commit to the one official version of the code. Easy branches are a useful extra, not a reason to celebrate chaos as a cool new paradigm and forget about making releases.