3 ms·
Really? This article sounds very over simplified, but I haven't worked at google so I wouldn't know. I'm assuming if you want to change some much depended on
by 727374 11y ago
Really? This article sounds very over simplified, but I haven't worked at google so I wouldn't know. I'm assuming if you want to change some much depended on library, there's a way to up the version number so you don't hose all your downstream users. That's the way it worked at Amazon at least. Also, I wonder why the people in the story think Google's codebase is larger than that of other tech giants, not that it really matters.
- rictic 11y agoIt's incumbent upon the person updating the library to get all users migrated to the new one. There are a few strategies for doing this though, including temporarily having two versions of the library. There are also tools for making large scale changes safely and quickly.
- zBard 11y agoLast I heard Google is still on Java 7 precisely because of this, although that might have changed. It's fun seeing the different theologies at Amazon and Google - I remember Yegge's famous platform rant, and he highlighted the Amazon versioned-library system as something which it did better than Google.
- jsolson 11y agoGoogle mostly works at HEAD. Very little is versioned, and branches are almost unheard of. In general you change the much depended on library and all of its consumers (probably over time in multiple changes, but you can do it in one go if it really needs to be a single giant change).
- devinj 11y agoThe whole point of one big repository is being able to avoid versioning and always work at head.