From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Edward Z. Yang" Subject: Re: Interest in locking mechanism? Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:11:44 -0500 Message-ID: <1263323292-sup-4182@ezyang> References: <1263319565-sup-1767@ezyang> <32541b131001121101i76ad8062p3a7f3571ad86b0ce@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: git To: Avery Pennarun X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 12 20:11:53 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NUm9g-0006yF-NO for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:11:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753530Ab0ALTLt (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:11:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753471Ab0ALTLs (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:11:48 -0500 Received: from DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-8.MIT.EDU ([18.7.68.37]:58587 "EHLO dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753419Ab0ALTLs (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:11:48 -0500 X-AuditID: 12074425-b7ca5ae000007e53-1e-4b4cc9732c49 Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 9D.3A.32339.379CC4B4; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from outgoing-legacy.mit.edu (OUTGOING-LEGACY.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.104]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id o0CJC7uC026549; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (EZYANG.MIT.EDU [18.243.1.50]) ) by outgoing-legacy.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id o0CJC01U001092; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:12:01 -0500 (EST) In-reply-to: <32541b131001121101i76ad8062p3a7f3571ad86b0ce@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Sup/git X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAgCq+KkSV7V1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Excerpts from Avery Pennarun's message of Tue Jan 12 14:01:42 -0500 2010: > If what you want is just one shared working copy with locking, then > what you want is RCS. Why change what's not broken? You're not doing > anything distributed or even any branching, and you don't need to > atomically commit multiple files at once (which would be very > confusing if more than one person is changing stuff in the current > tree), so git doesn't seem buy you anything. I would like to respectfully disagree. I want to use git because: * I use Git on a regular basis, and do not use RCS. I constantly have to go digging through the manpages when I occasionally do stumble upon an RCS system. Interface familiarity is nice. * Putting it in Git means that you can easily grow; you can decide "Hey, maybe we want to do branchy development" and just do it, rather than have to drum up the activation energy to do an rcsimport. * If code is deployed in a production context as a Git checkout, you can definitely have both branchy development as well as a shared working copy (with low contention, but contention nonetheless). Cheers, Edward