And we should trust your unsupported assertion more than the educated opinion of the originator and head of one of the most successful large software projects in history because...?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Sunday June 03, 2007 @02:38AM (#19369071)
I was at the talk and I have to say he lost a HUGE amount of respect from me (and other people in the room whose job has to do with source control).
The way git works as a decentralized solution with a chain of trust is simply not useable for really large, multiple projects with interdependencies. And it's even worse when you need to control access to certain portions of the code.
I see Git as a pyramid scheme [wikipedia.org] with Linus sitting on top. I can't start imagining the job of the poor release engineer in a big corp who would need to merge the changes of sub-engineers and the chain of trust involved to reach the top ! What I see is that everyone would code and test on out of sync code, a bit like Vista's development was.
Git is a solution that is fine tuned to Linus specific needs, but it's ages away from a solution that's flexible for most of the industry's needs.
I'm a big fan of subversion, and while I'll admit it's far from perfect it's way better than cvs could ever be. It does the job well most of the time, and SVK [bestpractical.com] is filling some of the holes.
See the video again...
you don't need ACLs in GIT because it's a "pull system".
Instead of giving someone access to "your repository" (let's say you are the coordinator of a large software project) YOU decide from which people you pull... you can do it based on a web of trust ("I know this guy, he produce good code !"), on corporate politics ("I only pull from the department chief programmers") or even on a case by case decission ("Damn, this smart guy from the user interface team explained me the bug in
Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong.
- Oscar Wilde
git (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:git (Score:4, Interesting)
I was at the talk and I have to say he lost a HUGE amount of respect from me (and other people in the room whose job has to do with source control).
The way git works as a decentralized solution with a chain of trust is simply not useable for really large, multiple projects with interdependencies. And it's even worse when you need to control access to certain portions of the code.
I see Git as a pyramid scheme [wikipedia.org] with Linus sitting on top. I can't start imagining the job of the poor release engineer in a big corp who would need to merge the changes of sub-engineers and the chain of trust involved to reach the top ! What I see is that everyone would code and test on out of sync code, a bit like Vista's development was.
Git is a solution that is fine tuned to Linus specific needs, but it's ages away from a solution that's flexible for most of the industry's needs.
I'm a big fan of subversion, and while I'll admit it's far from perfect it's way better than cvs could ever be. It does the job well most of the time, and SVK [bestpractical.com] is filling some of the holes.
Re: (Score:1)