From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 02:54:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CB46EC for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:54:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from agogare.doit.wisc.edu (agogare.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.197.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C6A8FC12 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:54:02 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received: from avs-daemon.smtpauth2.wiscmail.wisc.edu by smtpauth2.wiscmail.wisc.edu (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) id <0MDP00100P9W2G00@smtpauth2.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:53:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from comporellon.tachypleus.net ([unknown] [76.210.62.21]) by smtpauth2.wiscmail.wisc.edu (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0MDP00JCYP9QH610@smtpauth2.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:53:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:53:50 -0600 From: Nathan Whitehorn Subject: Re: FreeBSD needs Git to ensure repo integrity [was: 2012 incident] In-reply-to: <20121118073128.GG73505@kib.kiev.ua> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <50A9912E.3090608@freebsd.org> X-Spam-Report: AuthenticatedSender=yes, SenderIP=76.210.62.21 X-Spam-PmxInfo: Server=avs-13, Version=5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.11.14.164515, SenderIP=76.210.62.21 References: <20121117221143.41c29ba2@nonamehost> <50a8eb34.5pMwq6kSsi47QgKI%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20121118073128.GG73505@kib.kiev.ua> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121116 Thunderbird/16.0.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:54:02 -0000 On 11/18/12 01:31, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05:40PM -0800, Perry Hutchison wrote: >> [trimmed some of the lists] >> >> Chris Rees wrote: >>> ... git doesn't work with our workflow. >> I'm sure the workflow itself is documented somewhere, but is >> there a good writeup of _how_ git doesn't work with it, e.g. what >> capabilit{y,ies} is/are missing? Seems this might be of interest >> to the git developers, not because they necessarily want to support >> FreeBSD as such, but as an example of a real-world workflow that git >> currently does not handle well. > Git would work well with our workflow. It supports the centralized > repository model, which the project employs right now. > > The biggest issues, assuming the project indeed decides to move to Git > right now, are the migration costs, both in the term of the technical > efforts needed, and the learning curve for the most population of the > committers. > > Relatively minor problem, at least with the current rate of the commits, > would be a commit race, when the shared repo head forwarded due to the > parallel commit. The issue should be somewhat mitigated by the Git > allowance to push a set of changes in one push. git would be a huge step backward from svn for the central repo in lots of ways. Besides being (in my experience) extremely fragile and error-prone and the issues of workflow that have been brought up, the loss of monotonic revision numbers is a really major problem. 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. -Nathan