git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
To: Steven Grimm <koreth@midwinter.com>
Cc: 'git' <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Subversion developer: svn is for dumb people
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:34:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071019113447.GC4404@artemis.corp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47176CE0.7030609@midwinter.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2106 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:25:36PM +0000, Steven Grimm wrote:
> Thought folks here might get a kick out of this:
> 
> http://blog.red-bean.com/sussman/?p=79
> 
> Okay, my summary is slightly facetious, but that's basically the gist of 
> what he's saying: you should choose Subversion rather than a DVCS because 
> most of your users won't be smart enough to use the better tool.
> 
> I can't say he's completely wrong, especially about the 20/80% idea 
> (though I think "20%" is generous), but some of his specific arguments 
> about DVCS are on the bogus side. "Centralized systems encourage code 
> reviews," for one -- I challenge him to find a project with a more 
> pervasive and effective code-reviewing culture than the git project.

  Your argument is also bogus.

  IMNSHO, peer reviewing has nothing to do with git, svn, or $SCM. It's
a social pattern. There are people that do it because they understand
it's a good and necessary sound thing to do, and there are the others.
Guess what, it has a lot to do with the 20%/80% line (that I would have
more described as the 2/98 but well…).

  Put git into the hands of fools, they won't proofread their code more
or less than with svn. And they will shoot themselves into their foots
twice as often as with svn.

  Though, for people that are able to deal with git and use it, git
allows way better code reviewing patterns than with svn, because you
can prepare a nice incremental branch that adds each new features you
worked on with small patches (see my parse-options series). With svn,
you can't do that, because there is no tool that allow you to record
those patches on your end, so you submit a big +4123/-2341 patch. That
makes peer reviewing really harder.

  Of course the git community is a perfect example of how code should be
reviewed. But it's not because we use git, it's because we definitely
are in the "20%".

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-10-19 11:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-18 14:25 Subversion developer: svn is for dumb people Steven Grimm
2007-10-18 16:57 ` David Brown
2007-10-18 18:33 ` Jeff King
2007-10-18 22:40 ` Sam Vilain
2007-10-19 11:34 ` Pierre Habouzit [this message]
2007-10-19 13:17   ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-10-19 13:19     ` Pierre Habouzit
2007-10-19 12:10 ` Andy Parkins

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071019113447.GC4404@artemis.corp \
    --to=madcoder@debian.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=koreth@midwinter.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).