On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 06:41 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Git is just a PITA in its own league, but DVCSes as a whole are a > [...] unhelpful (inherently hard to use) concept. I can't reproduce either issue. :D > broken (*) > (*) e.g. because of the strong reliance on hashes, which can make the whole > thing break down in the event of a hash collision, "Broken" in the past tense is inaccurate: no SHA-1 collision has been published yet. I would like to see DVCSes switch to a stronger hash algorithm sooner rather than later, but it's not enough of a concern that I would avoid using them. If it makes you feel any better, git will not allow a fetched object to replace a local one with the same hash, so you can only lose if you fetch from the attacker first. > and which make commit IDs > nonsequential and unpredictable For sequential commit numbering, try "git describe". > > Some of the complexity is intrinsic to distributed VCS and has to be > > weighed against the significant benefits to people who build custom > > packages, like me. > > I don't see how dist-git makes it any easier to build customized packages. > If you really want a local git mirror of a centralized repository, you can > also use git-cvs, git-svn or the like. This is a valid point which I forgot about. > All this dist-git migration has brought us is chaos, a much higher barrier > to entry and much harder work for existing packagers. (And yes, I've also > tried to make these points BEFORE the migration, but nobody listened.) I suppose you are referring to this: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-June/137582.html The problems with CVS were amply explained there, but it's less clear to me whether there were compelling reasons to choose git over (e.g.) SVN + git-svn or the people involved just happened to like distributed version control, as I do. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
