On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:18:55 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > Having seen git trash a repository and the fsck of git say nothing was > wrong I'm firmly against adopting git for anything long term and serious > until it is a lot more robust. Alan, you've mentioned this trashing twice in this thread. Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence about this? If we are to take your recommendation seriously, how do you recommend we measure the robustness of git? Even if there are bugs in the current git-fsck-objects, (something I haven't seen), the git design for full-history integrity is extremely compelling. Barring bugs, any corruption to the history can be detected with an fsck, and no corrupt object can ever enter the repository to replace a good object, (nor will the protocols allow an object to enter the repository under a false pretense of its contents since content is transferred, not hashes, which are always computed locally). And seriously, we're talking about a replacement for cvs here. In every major conversion effort away from cvs that I have seen, the primary difficulty has been dealing with corruption in the cvs data, (both from users doing "bad things" sue to cvs limitations, and due to other corruption that cvs never noticed).. I strongly doubt there is any large, long-term cvs repository without serious damage already. -Carl
Attachment:
pgpWdUtYzoCmY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
