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, http://www.koch.ro --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
