Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:12:58 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident] Message-ID: <50AA305A.8080702@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <50A9912E.3090608@freebsd.org> References: <CAD2Ti29UoFcHendR8CcdQ4FPNW1HH0O47B1i3JW00Lke2m2POg@mail.gmail.com> <20121117221143.41c29ba2@nonamehost> <op.wnxq9eo0g7njmm@michael-think> <CADLo838oG26KmfHJ%2BtLh82GoJzzRtfqy69%2BNny1_DC8F8X4POQ@mail.gmail.com> <50a8eb34.5pMwq6kSsi47QgKI%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20121118073128.GG73505@kib.kiev.ua> <50A9912E.3090608@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 19/11/2012 03:53 Nathan Whitehorn said the following:
> git would be a huge step backward from svn for the central repo in lots of ways.
Dramatic statements ("huge", "lots") require dramatic evidence.
> Besides being (in my experience) extremely fragile and error-prone and the
Ditto ("extremely").
> issues of workflow that have been brought up, the loss of monotonic revision
> numbers is a really major problem.
Monotonic revision numbers are nice to have, but again, are they really of that
major importance?
> Switching SCMs as a result of a security
> problem is also an action totally disproportionate with the issue that should
> not be made in a panic. Having more [cryptographic] verifiability in the release
> process is a good thing; it is not strictly related to the choice of version
> control system.
With this part I entirely agree.
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50AA305A.8080702>