Open Source

32665 readers

1063 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why SQLite Does Not Use Git (sqlite.org)

submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I kind of get where they are coming from. However git seems so ubiquitous that few people even consider possible alternatives.

What are your thoughts on this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 years ago (5 children)

A lot of the selling points of Fossil were the reasons I didn't go with Mercurial.

I do agree, seeing every branch at once in a single repository, would be nice online. That is something that GitExtensions or GitAhead does much better than Github or Gitlab.

As much as the small team/cathedral development goes, I consider those non-desirable features since I'm fond of faster releases and potential of bringing someone else online. But, Git doesn't really prevent small tests, that's what access control is for, and many projects do cathedral using Git.

I don't really see myself switching, but it's always cool to see what others are doing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

small team/cathedral development goes, I consider those non-desirable features since I’m fond of faster releases and potential of bringing someone else online.

Can you explain a bit better what you mean by this? To me the bureaucratic structure of git with its staging and manual merging + PR review and all that seems suitable for a large project with many not really trustworthy external contributors like the Linux kernel, but for most small open-source projects it rather seems like multiple barriers for getting people on board as regular contributors, no?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

I agree that the PR process is bureaucratic, but that's not the workflow that Git was made for. It's a workflow popularized by GitHub.

The workflow that Git was made for was "make commits" + "export patches" + "send patches". This typically happens over a mailing list. Under this workflow, sending a contribution is a two-step process: git commit and git send-email. The recipient could be a mailing list, or it could just be the developer's email address you grabbed from a commit message. That's part of the reason why Git has you include your email in every commit.

load more comments (3 replies)