4 ms·

Postfix (1998) predates Git (2005) by 7 years. That isn't to say that a VCS of some kind wouldn't have its benefits, but it's completely up to the author's deci

Postfix (1998) predates Git (2005) by 7 years. That isn't to say that a VCS of some kind wouldn't have its benefits, but it's completely up to the author's decision.

codezero 12y ago
So does Linux...
- gouggoug 12y ago
  Well, except that git was created for Linux by its creator, Torvalds. It still was the author's (Torvalds) decision to use a VCS. But no need to fall into the troll. The author of the original thread is obviously clueless. edit: fixed 2 pretty big typos.
  - brokenparser 12y ago
    Say "Torvald" one more time.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - bigiain 12y ago
    Keep in mid the story is a bit more complicated than than - Linus/Linux was using Bitkeeper, until their free license to all kernel devs and interested parties went away - _then_ Linus wrote git. The need/usefulness of version control was orthogonal to (and preceded) the decision to write his own (d)vcs. (Edit: misrememebred the actual vcs, originally posted Mercurial instead od Bitkeeper - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper#History )
    - gouggoug 12y ago
      Absolutely. Here's the link to "A short History of Git": http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-of-Git http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-o...
- hblanks 12y ago
  Even Linux only started using VCS in 1998. It was only tarballs maintained by Linus and e-mailed patches before then. Rebel Code (http://books.google.com/books/about/Rebel_Code.html?id=kIU1scm4w6QC http://books.google.com/books/about/Rebel_Code.html?id=kIU1s...) does a pretty good job summing up how Linux migrated from tarball source releases to BitKeeper (and eventually, of course, git). It appears that Steve Weber also writes on this, in a format that may be easier to read. (http://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=linux+vger+fork&source=bl&ots=-fXPLKcZ0g&sig=upmLnbpLkZ_BtPvwHXydSJzWRcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zimdU7PJBYf8oASQ9IDIDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=linux%20vger%20fork&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA117&lpg=P...). The e-mails sent at the time around this make this thread seem, well, pretty friendly, actually. (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9809.3/0493.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9809.3/0493.html) To the Postfix maintainers' point, Linus appears to have had quite reasonable reasons for maintaining the changes himself in the years up to then. Only when the number of active contributors got large (I suspect significantly larger than Postfix's) did this model break down. It's not the best for everyone, but I'm really glad they're maintaining a great open source product. The early 2000s in particular were not an easy time for MTAs.
jevinskie 12y ago
The OP states that they do not care about the particular VCS, just that there is a public repo. Someone else responds that there is a private repo (without specifying a particular VCS). The crux of the matter here is public vs private and lump-sum version level changes vs something more granular.

Postfix (1998) predates Git (2005) by 7 years. That isn't to say that a VCS of some kind wouldn't have its benefits, but it's completely up to the author's decision.

codezero 12y ago

So does Linux...

gouggoug 12y ago
Well, except that git was created for Linux by its creator, Torvalds. It still was the author's (Torvalds) decision to use a VCS. But no need to fall into the troll. The author of the original thread is obviously clueless. edit: fixed 2 pretty big typos.
- brokenparser 12y ago
  Say "Torvald" one more time.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- bigiain 12y ago
  Keep in mid the story is a bit more complicated than than - Linus/Linux was using Bitkeeper, until their free license to all kernel devs and interested parties went away - _then_ Linus wrote git. The need/usefulness of version control was orthogonal to (and preceded) the decision to write his own (d)vcs. (Edit: misrememebred the actual vcs, originally posted Mercurial instead od Bitkeeper - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper#History )
  - gouggoug 12y ago
    Absolutely. Here's the link to "A short History of Git": http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-of-Git http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-o...
hblanks 12y ago
Even Linux only started using VCS in 1998. It was only tarballs maintained by Linus and e-mailed patches before then. Rebel Code (http://books.google.com/books/about/Rebel_Code.html?id=kIU1scm4w6QC http://books.google.com/books/about/Rebel_Code.html?id=kIU1s...) does a pretty good job summing up how Linux migrated from tarball source releases to BitKeeper (and eventually, of course, git). It appears that Steve Weber also writes on this, in a format that may be easier to read. (http://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=linux+vger+fork&source=bl&ots=-fXPLKcZ0g&sig=upmLnbpLkZ_BtPvwHXydSJzWRcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zimdU7PJBYf8oASQ9IDIDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=linux%20vger%20fork&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA117&lpg=P...). The e-mails sent at the time around this make this thread seem, well, pretty friendly, actually. (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9809.3/0493.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9809.3/0493.html) To the Postfix maintainers' point, Linus appears to have had quite reasonable reasons for maintaining the changes himself in the years up to then. Only when the number of active contributors got large (I suspect significantly larger than Postfix's) did this model break down. It's not the best for everyone, but I'm really glad they're maintaining a great open source product. The early 2000s in particular were not an easy time for MTAs.

jevinskie 12y ago

The OP states that they do not care about the particular VCS, just that there is a public repo. Someone else responds that there is a private repo (without specifying a particular VCS). The crux of the matter here is public vs private and lump-sum version level changes vs something more granular.