lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Koch <>
Subject Re: official GIT repository / switch to GIT?
Date Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:37:29 GMT
Hi Mark,

Mark Bennett:
> Hi Thomas,
> An interesting thread, thanks for starting it.  Since you anticipated my
> knee-jerk reaction (though I wouldn't have flamed you), I was inspired to
>  go find out a bit more about it.
Very sympatic. :-)

> The focus on merging is quite interesting.
It's awesome. wonderful. life changing!

> Not that this is a concern for ASF, but for me I think other aspects of git
> might cause concern for my commercial clients.
> 1: Many companies have taken the time to move from CVS to SVN, which was an
> improvement.  And I think most are happy with it.  It fixed most of the
>  file locking issues of it's predecessor, though I do hear a fair amount of
>  branch and merge conversations.  So I think they think "problem solved",
>  but maybe git could make even more things run smoothly.
What I remember from my last SVN job and see from still not illuminated 
collegues: With SVN you tend to have uncommitted code lying around on your 
machine for days or even weeks until it's ready to get committed to the 
central repository. - I don't need to tell you the problems with this.

> 2: Actually I think the "distributed" aspect of git might actually make
> companies nervous.  I'm not saying this is justified, I'm talking
>  perception here.
> This is a true story: A large client sternly reminded everybody about the
> absolute ban on peer-to-peer and distributed file sharing, and conveying
> that this could qualify as a first time termination offense.  I never got
> full details, but there had been an incident of an employee intentionally
> covering their tracks, and for clearly for illegal activities.
> But I politely pointed out that Bit Torrent, for example, is often used for
> legitimate like Linux distributions.  Given the recent happenings my
>  manager suggested that the company simply didn't want to discuss it.  So I
>  dropped it.
> There's also some mention in the git wiki about where files live and that
> perhaps companies that are used to backing up centralized repositories
>  might find the git model different (my words)
I've read several times the misunderstanding, that with GIT you couldn't have 
a centraliced repository, since it's decentraliced. But I think most people 
understand when one explains them, that a central GIT repository gets central 
just by convention. And of course this can then also be backed up and 
integrated in all kinds of QA tools.

> If the merge-friendly nature of git were seen as valuable enough, I'm sure
> some companies would revisit their policies.
I've read stories of entire teams using git-svn against the companies official 
SVN repos because they just can't stand it anymore once they got hooked.

Best regards,

Thomas Koch,

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message