Sean Healy<jalopeura@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One problem: how would we enforce it? How *could* we enforce it? The > very point of a DVCS is that there is no central authority with that > kind of control. That's not really the point of a DVCS, it's just making that work flow much more comfortable. Forking is possible with SVN as well, and no matter what tool, a real fork cannot be in our interest. However, the current model wouldn't really change with a DVCS, it would just be simplified: the current developers would still be responsible to merge their changes to trunk, as well as they would still need to merge patches from other people to it. Since we're open source, there is no way to enforce a particular use with the sources anyway. While a DVCS makes branches (and thus, forking) much easier, it's not the intention of this work flow to end up with several forks of the same piece of software. It makes this scenario just much more maintainable (as needed for the linux kernel, where there is also one trunk, and many proprietary vendor versions of it). Bye, Axel.