3 ms·

Why is there nothing better than Git? I mean... It is a centralized service that does not take any benefit from being a centralized service like other collabo

Why is there nothing better than Git? I mean... It is a centralized service that does not take any benefit from being a centralized service like other collaboration software. At the same time it is a bit decentralized but not really. The way Git works have an impact on how you build things. In private corporations. ACL is needed for compliance and so on and you end up with a lot repos. Then it propagates on to build pipelines and so on. There is no proper way to control secrets. There is no good built in way to separate users from service users like agents and so on. I wonder what the large IT companies use. Surely it can't be Git as is.

Kelamir 5y ago
I think you're confusing Git with GitHub.
- AtNightWeCode 5y ago
  Not at all, Github adds some more or less useless features to git without tackling any of the basic problems with git.
gizmo686 5y ago
Changing your remote is a one liner. If you can't be bothered to find the command, the config file is self explantory and easy to find. Any clone of the repository can function as a remote; and every developer has a full clone. If a clone is on a machine with an ssh server, it can be accessed through ssh. Doing so immidietly gives you all access control mechanisms present on said server. For simple setups, this is traditional user accounts with tradutional DAC, possibly with public key authentication uf SSH is so confifured. For more complex situations you can use arbitrary PAM modules. Otherwise any remote filesystem would work once you mount it. These are all concepts that any IT department fielding Linux systems will already need to deal with. As a developer, I have taken advantage of the distributed nature of git without a second thought. No access to the main repository? No problem, there is a clone on our build server, point your remote to that.
- AtNightWeCode 5y ago
  The thing is that those repos will only be shared among the users, hence the most important repos does not benefit from distribution since only a fragment of users have access to the most important repos. Most distributed systems use server and client agents. That would solve a lot of things.

Kelamir 5y ago

I think you're confusing Git with GitHub.

AtNightWeCode 5y ago
Not at all, Github adds some more or less useless features to git without tackling any of the basic problems with git.

gizmo686 5y ago

Changing your remote is a one liner. If you can't be bothered to find the command, the config file is self explantory and easy to find. Any clone of the repository can function as a remote; and every developer has a full clone. If a clone is on a machine with an ssh server, it can be accessed through ssh. Doing so immidietly gives you all access control mechanisms present on said server. For simple setups, this is traditional user accounts with tradutional DAC, possibly with public key authentication uf SSH is so confifured. For more complex situations you can use arbitrary PAM modules. Otherwise any remote filesystem would work once you mount it. These are all concepts that any IT department fielding Linux systems will already need to deal with. As a developer, I have taken advantage of the distributed nature of git without a second thought. No access to the main repository? No problem, there is a clone on our build server, point your remote to that.

AtNightWeCode 5y ago
The thing is that those repos will only be shared among the users, hence the most important repos does not benefit from distribution since only a fragment of users have access to the most important repos. Most distributed systems use server and client agents. That would solve a lot of things.