3 ms·

“Decentralized”? I agree with you that Linux development is weird compared to most places. Most places have a designated central repo that acts as the source o

“Decentralized”? I agree with you that Linux development is weird compared to most places. Most places have a designated central repo that acts as the source of truth, whereas the Linux developers don’t really have this. This is possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think that when there is an official main repo, git is far more complicated than it needs to be. It’s confusing to a lot of developers because of all this unnecessary complexity. Most teams could probably be served better by a simpler system.

Koromix 6y ago
I share this opinion as well. For centralized-repo style, which is what most teams need, the Git model has three problems: - It is hard to use. There's a reason most teams have a single or two Git "experts" to help everyone else resolve repository / merge / pull / whatever problems that happen regularly. The onboarding experience for developers unfamilir with Git is very bad, and many of them end up never able to use it. If you have non-developers (e.g. artists), it is even worse. - Binary files. Yes, there is Git LFS, but there are many small integration problems when you try to use it, and the simple fact that Git needs something special to manage binary files is a problem. And no, storing binary files outside the repository is NOT a good solution. In games for example, the binary files and the engine usually evole together and if you want to checkout an old version, the code and the assets need to stay in sync. You want to version the game, not just the engine. - Partial (subtree) clones and permissions. There's a reason monorepos are popular: they're much simpler to manage. Unfortunaly, because Git barely does partial clones and cannot manage permissions (inside a repository) at all, monorepos are much more limited than in SVN or P4. That's why many projects end up divided in multiple repos, but this brings all sorts of problems and a large administrative overhead for all developers.
- nix23 6y ago
  Give bitkeeper a try, it's now FOSS -Simple clean interface -You can work the linux way or with a central-repo-style -Binary Asset Manager build in -Nested (submodules done right)
  - Koromix 6y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the tip! I'm gonna give it a go during the weekend.
- mpawelski 6y ago
  The point of being hard to use is valid. But I would focus more on being hard to learn instead. Once you know it you forgot about it 99% of times, for other 1% it's good to have this "git expert" on a team ;) For other points there seems to be ongoing process [0][1] and I think in one year or more having huge monorepos with binary files should not be such a big problem or require additional tools. It should be build in core git. Permissions seems to be partially "solved" by git hosting sites like Github. But I agree it's a pity we don't have anything build in core git for this :( [0] https://github.blog/2020-01-17-bring-your-monorepo-down-to-size-with-sparse-checkout/ https://github.blog/2020-01-17-bring-your-monorepo-down-to-s... [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/partial-clone https://git-scm.com/docs/partial-clone

Koromix 6y ago

I share this opinion as well. For centralized-repo style, which is what most teams need, the Git model has three problems: - It is hard to use. There's a reason most teams have a single or two Git "experts" to help everyone else resolve repository / merge / pull / whatever problems that happen regularly. The onboarding experience for developers unfamilir with Git is very bad, and many of them end up never able to use it. If you have non-developers (e.g. artists), it is even worse. - Binary files. Yes, there is Git LFS, but there are many small integration problems when you try to use it, and the simple fact that Git needs something special to manage binary files is a problem. And no, storing binary files outside the repository is NOT a good solution. In games for example, the binary files and the engine usually evole together and if you want to checkout an old version, the code and the assets need to stay in sync. You want to version the game, not just the engine. - Partial (subtree) clones and permissions. There's a reason monorepos are popular: they're much simpler to manage. Unfortunaly, because Git barely does partial clones and cannot manage permissions (inside a repository) at all, monorepos are much more limited than in SVN or P4. That's why many projects end up divided in multiple repos, but this brings all sorts of problems and a large administrative overhead for all developers.

nix23 6y ago
Give bitkeeper a try, it's now FOSS -Simple clean interface -You can work the linux way or with a central-repo-style -Binary Asset Manager build in -Nested (submodules done right)
- Koromix 6y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the tip! I'm gonna give it a go during the weekend.
mpawelski 6y ago
The point of being hard to use is valid. But I would focus more on being hard to learn instead. Once you know it you forgot about it 99% of times, for other 1% it's good to have this "git expert" on a team ;) For other points there seems to be ongoing process [0][1] and I think in one year or more having huge monorepos with binary files should not be such a big problem or require additional tools. It should be build in core git. Permissions seems to be partially "solved" by git hosting sites like Github. But I agree it's a pity we don't have anything build in core git for this :( [0] https://github.blog/2020-01-17-bring-your-monorepo-down-to-size-with-sparse-checkout/ https://github.blog/2020-01-17-bring-your-monorepo-down-to-s... [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/partial-clone https://git-scm.com/docs/partial-clone