Timeline for Why does everyone use Git in a centralized manner?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2016 at 0:56 | comment | added | user22815 | @fishinear in other words with traditional CVCS you commit either to a branch or to trunk on the server. | |
| Apr 13, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | fishinear | "With traditional CVCS you either commit or you don't." - that's not true, of course. The normal way of working, on a personal branch, allows you to do whatever you like until your code is merged into the main branch. And the same way of working can in principle be used for "public or OSS project" with an CVCS, although I agree that would be more cumbersome. | |
| Apr 13, 2016 at 12:41 | comment | added | Lie Ryan | @ninjalj: presumably, what gardenhead meant is that git was widespread before ci become widespread. | |
| Apr 13, 2016 at 2:27 | comment | added | Charles Duffy | CI was definitely in use (in big shops) long before git. The build cluster (and yes, it was a cluster) at MontaVista was a thing of beauty. | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 19:34 | comment | added | ninjalj | @gardenhead: but I'm pretty sure that Git was in widespread use before Continuous Integration was Citation needed. As anecdotal evidence, at a previous job, we used Mozilla Tinderbox before git even existed. | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 4:08 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @SteveJessop ... and expanding on that, you can have a feature group set up a Git server (on one of their laptops), and push and pull from that until the feature is done, and then push that back to the central server when that is done. I'm not sure why you'd use a separate server instead of a branch on the main server, but you can. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 8:49 | comment | added | Luaan | @ChristianSauer Yes, but shelveshets are really just lightweight branches (personalized or not). That said, TFS is a whole collaboration system and TFVC (the version control system) is just a small part, and it does work rather well for what it's intended for. But no matter how good TFS is, I love the ability to commit changes locally - and that's already using the D in DVCS :) The same goes for local branches, naturally. And I've used this on TFS and SVN too - just make a local Git repo, no need to push your whole organization to Git :) | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 8:38 | comment | added | Christian Sauer | @SteveJessop TFS has Shelvesets, which support the "Store tentative, make code review, merge changes" very well. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 6:42 | comment | added | whatsisname | @Superbest: a lot (if not all) of the design of git was based around Bitkeeper. Git was created after the linux-bitkeeper controversy imploded. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 6:25 | comment | added | Miles Budnek | Because there is no "one true build" of the linux kernel. Since everyone builds it themselves, Linus' repo is no more canonical than anyone else's. If you're selling a product that doesn't work so well. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 3:39 | comment | added | Superbest | Interesting logic. Why did Linus decide to design it this way, then? Did he not realize that the build system would impose a central repo anyway? Did he not care? | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 0:40 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | "anyone can see my tentative code" -- and they can also pull your tentative code, merge it with their tentative code, and run the tests. This is a pain in centralized VCSes, since it requires branches and changes in the One True Copy. Distributed, you just configure extra remotes, then start merging, patching, and cherry-picking. You have tracking of what you've done but nobody else ever has to see what shenanigans you're up to unless you choose to publish them. In general I recommend nobody should declare DVCS pointless until they've actually used SVN for a large project... | |
| Apr 9, 2016 at 23:48 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @gardenhead: you missed the point: the same argument holds if one does the integration builds manually. "CI" is just an automatization for a process which is much older that Git. | |
| Apr 9, 2016 at 22:18 | comment | added | gardenhead | Overall good answer, but I'm pretty sure that Git was in widespread use before Continuous Integration was; our team does use CI, by the way, thanks for checking :D. | |
| Apr 9, 2016 at 16:17 | history | answered | user22815 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |