[Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758

[Florian Klaempfl]

Alexander Klenin schrieb:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 20:16, Florian Klaempfl <florian at freepascal.org> wrote:
>> Alexander Klenin schrieb:
>>> I.e. my specific problem can be solved in SVN by creating a branch of TAChart
>>> component and giving me commit access to it, but then
>>> similar branch should be created for my patches to DBGrid,
>>> and yet another one for patches to SynEdit (both stalled for about a month now),
>>> etc.
>>> Obviously, this is not a scalable solution for many developers ;-)
>>>
>> But isn't the problem that the patches don't get into the central
>> repository?
> 
> They will get there eventually. The key thing is that patches can be 'batched'
> for review/application and not spoon-fed one by one.

This can be done with an svn branch as well? I'am rather sure the
lazarus people give you write access to a branch if you ask. And this
has a real advantage: if you just commit your changes to your local
repository, the changes get lost if you "disappear"  and nobody did pull
them yet (this is also why we recommend to attach patches to "bug
reports", they won't get lost this way), the patches are lost. If they
are in a svn branch, they aren't lost.

> Look at what is going on at kernel.org -- a feature can be implemented as a
> series of 10 or even 100 patches -- imagine how much time it would take
> to submit and review each patch sequentially.

The point about kernel.org is that they have dedicated reviewers. If
lazarus has dedicated reviewers/merger then this could be done as well.
The actual merge command of a branch in svn is a non brainer as well.

> 
>> BTW: An fpc/lazarus git repository would be really no fun: due to the
>> flaky connection a git clone of a converted repository is from
>> svn.freepascal.org basically not possible, at least not for me from germany.
> 
> Sorry, I can not parse this sentence.

For testing purposes, I converted the fpc repository to git. However,
due to the slow and unreliable connection of our vc server to my place,
I was not able to clone this repository to my machine at home. A broken
svn checkout can be continued, a git clone apparently not.

> 
>> how does a DVCS scale better in this regard for
>> small and medium sized projects (<100 developers)?
> 
> DVCS does not require any central administration to create branches
> for every developer/feature. 

It requires it. Or how would you create releases then? The features must
go into this repository and if noone does so, the feature is pretty
useless as well.

> It also does not require network connection
> for doing commits, which is important to some contries/regions
> where Internet is still not cheap or reliable enough.
> 

See above :)