Linus Torvalds discussing source control programs and GIT

[ted leslie]

The servers certainly work well or superior with Linux, I would assume HP
and other high end clients are at least back ending the Plastic on Linux.
The client gui, I loved it because it worked on Linux, and I thought it was
great, but gui aside, if you go down to CLI level, if one prefers, it would
be the same across all platforms. I thought they would be using gtk# on all
3 platforms, so the client experience should be the same given its a
linux/unix GUI, but they may have the win client being WPF, but then it is
all supposed to be Mono, so that wouldn't make any sense.
I like open source too, but even if Plastic stopped the free license for 10
users or whatever it is, I would be fine for 10-20 more years just using
the last free version, unless there is some miracle advancements in
merging. Then if someone did do a much better merge, that would be worth
paying a bit for IMO.
I would be surprised if they ever revoked the free, but maybe they could
take it down to 2-3 person groups size. Of course if you have project that
needs 10+ on it, then there would be a cost, but if their GIT client is
good? I am going to test that out soon, as I have a project on GIT hub that
I want to work with via a gui client. Maybe their GIT gui will make it so i
don't care whats beneath as the SCM engine.

-tl


On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:54 PM, William Muriithi <
> william.muriithi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Well, seems like PlasticSCM has the same prohibitive problem as
>> BitKeeper, which is that its proprietors may take their toys away at their
>> will.
>> >
>> > Perhaps ok for a "corporate" project where there's vastly more risk of
>> the company cancelling the project than of vendor rot, but utterly
>> unacceptable for free software projects.
>>
>> Plus, it seem like a Windows SCM. They say it has a weak support for Unix
>> and OSX. Essentially, that to me imply you need to be on Windows platform.
>>
> I noticed that, yeah.  They didn't really explain what "weak" meant in
> that context.
>
>> Now, I got curious by noticing it support both centralized development
>> and distributed development, I thought this would be exclusive?  How do
>> they pull that?
>>
> I don't think that's too terribly hard.
>
> If you attach policy that requires that commits get some sort of approval
> in a central place, that imposes centralization.  You can do that with Git
> by having commit hook scripts in a central place, for instance.  That
> doesn't diminish that the model of Git supports distributed development.
>
> Perhaps they do similar.
>
> If the distributable bits only run on Windows, and you only have 1 Windows
> server in your environment, then that would effectively centralize things
> :-)
> --
> When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
> question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140119/ab3df849/attachment.html>