Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

Andy Parkins [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tuesday 2007, April 17, Guilhem Bonnefille wrote:

quoted

So, my conclusion is the better model in a corporate is a centralyzed
repo with some users using Git as "frontend". Other people will
simply use the native tools for accessing the repo.

Git has you covered there - it works better than other version control 
systems for that model too.  I do it all the time; the only difference 
is that with git it's not the tool doesn't force the choice on you.

Actually my day-job corporate repo is probably more secured in
Git than in PVCS Version Manager, even though every developer
has the entire history on their laptop.

Basically with PVCS users cannot save their work-in-progress very
well, so they copy files onto random network shares to make backups.
Our checked out tree is only about 120 MiB or so, but we have (and
I'm not kidding) over 3 GiB worth of various copies of the source
on an open network drive that anyone in the company can access, even
if they aren't authorized to view the source code of the product...

Now that developers have switched to Git, they have stopped making
those copies onto the network drive.  Why?  Simple, the network drive
copy takes longer (and more effort) than `git commit; git push`!
Users are all pushing to private branch spaces on the server, so
their work isn't merged until they really are ready for it, and
that server is backed up to secure tapes nightly, so all-in-all
its a much better situation.

-- 
Shawn.