Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Avery Pennarun wrote: > > > An attack in which someone untraceably modified the repo to contain > > modified code would be a little more interesting. > > git makes this sort of thing pretty much impossible to do without it > > being *noticeable* at least. > > That is not true in all cases. > > If you're talking about a workflow as git.git has it, you're right, there > is a maintainer, and a refused push would ring all kinds of alarm bells > there. [...] > It gets even much, much worse in the common setup of companies: a central > repository. (The two main reasons why a central repository is used are: > tradition (we did it with Subversion, too), and bottleneck problems: a > single maintainer reviewing all changes is often deemed too expensive > and slow.) About "bottleneck problem". Frederick Brooks wrote in his seminal book "The Mythical Man-Month" that recommended way of organizing teams is *with a maintainer*. But this is less known that his most famous statement: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." (The Brooks's Law)... and I guess companies do not know about this one either :-) -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html