At what point does the push model degrade?

[Mark A. Flacy]

On 2007.11.17 05:09, Paul Sargent wrote:
> 
> On 16 Nov 2007, at 18:47, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> 
> > The worst that will happen if pushing doesn't scale for you is  
> that > your
> > history will be cluttered with some extra unneeded merges (you can
> > eliminate them from the output of "hg log" using "-M"), and people >  
> will
> > be frustrated and grumbly (there is no command line option for
> > eliminating this).  If the latter occurs, just switch to a  
> mostly-pull
> > model.  It's not hard, and it doesn't add significant overhead.
> 
> I personally don't understand this point. A pull model requires  
> somebody who's task is to act as gatekeeper/collator/manager of  
> change-sets, and this naturally has to be someone higher up the  
> knowledge tree. I would say that using that person for that task, and  
> removing them from development, is a significant cost. Also, as Ezra  
> says, if that person isn't there things break down.

a) Who says that you must remove that person from development?

b) It must be nice to have fully trained, high quality people working  
upon your project(s).  In the rest of working world, IMO it would be  
insane to allow commits to your delivery stream without some type of  
quality control.


-- 
Mark A. Flacy