linux-kernel - Re: git guidance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47583E57.9050208@op5.se>
Date:	Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:24:23 +0100
From:	Andreas Ericsson <ae@....se>
To:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
CC:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jing Xue <jingxue@...izenstudio.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, git@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git guidance

Al Boldi wrote:
> Phillip Susi wrote:
>> Al Boldi wrote:
>>> IOW, git currently only implements the server-side use-case, but fails
>>> to deliver on the client-side.  By introducing a git-client manager that
>>> handles the transparency needs of a single user, it should be possible
>>> to clearly isolate update semantics for both the client and the server,
>>> each handling their specific use-case.
>> Any talk of client or server makes no sense since git does not use a
>> client/server model.
> 
> Whether git uses the client/server model or not does not matter; what matters 
> is that there are two distinct use-cases at work here:  one on the 
> server/repository, and the other on the client.  
> 

Git is distributed. The repository is everywhere. No server is actually needed.
Many use one anyway since it can be convenient. It's not, however, necessary.

>> If you wish to use a centralized repository, then
>> git can be set up to transparently push/pull to/from said repository if
>> you wish via hooks or cron jobs.
> 
> Again, this only handles the interface to/from the server/repository, but 
> once you pulled the sources, it leaves you without Version Control on the 
> client.
> 

No, that's CVS, SVN and other centralized scm's. With git you have perfect
version control on each peer. That's the entire idea behind "fully
distributed".

> By pulling the sources into a git-client manager mounted on some dir, it 
> should be possible to let the developer work naturally/transparently in a 
> readable/writeable manner, and only require his input when reverting locally 
> or committing to the server/repository.
> 

How is that different from what every SCM, including git, is doing today? The
user needs to tell the scm when it's time to take a snapshot of the current
state. Git is distributed though, so committing is usually not the same as
publishing. Is that lack of a single command to commit and publish what's
nagging you? If it's not, I completely fail to see what you're getting at,
unless you've only ever looked at repositories without a worktree attached,
or you think that git should work like an editor's "undo" functionality,
which would be quite insane.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@....se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/