Linus Torvalds discussing source control programs and GIT

[Ben Walton]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:04 PM, ted leslie <ted.leslie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 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'd be surprised if it is still runnable without a containerized OS in
that time window. 10-20 years in this game is an eternity...


> 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?"
>
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the risk of thinking for yourself.  Much more happiness,
truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists