Re: git guidance

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 28, 2007, 18:14 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711281811500.27959@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <200711282014.27299.a1426z@gawab.com>

Hi,

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Al Boldi wrote:

> git@vger sometimes bounces, so let's leave lkml as backup.

Fair enough.

Show 22 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Rogan Dawes wrote:
> > > Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > It should not turn into an endless thread led by people who want 
> > > > > to redefine GIT's roadmap, but experience sharing helps a lot 
> > > > > with GIT.
> > > >
> > > > Well, now that you mentioned it, if there is one thing I dislike, 
> > > > it's for version control to start mutilating your sources.  
> > > > Version Control should be completely transparent.  GIT isn't.
> > >
> > > Care to explain? Git is quite happy handling arbitrary binary 
> > > content, so I find it difficult to believe that it is changing your 
> > > source code in strange ways.
> >
> > It is nice of you to ask him to explain: Unless this handwaving claim 
> > is substantiated, it is quite hard to argue with.
> 
> Sure, the problem with GIT is that it stores the sources inside a 
> backend container that is only accessible via GIT; iow, you can't 
> retrieve your sources directly / transparently.

That is a very funny way to define a "transparent SCM". Are you complaining about SQL servers being "not transparent"?

By that definition, no SCM, not even CVS, is transparent. Nothing short of unpacked directories of all versions (wasting a lot of disk space) would.

IOW the issue you raised is a non-issue.

Ciao, Dscho