Slashdot Mirror
Windows Switch To Git Almost Complete: 8,500 Commits and 1,760 Builds Each Day (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in February, Microsoft made the surprising announcement that the Windows development team was going to move to using the open source Git version control system for Windows development. A little over three months after that first revelation, and about 90 percent of the Windows engineering team has made the switch. The Windows repository now has about 4,400 active branches, with 8,500 code pushes made per day and 6,600 code reviews each day. An astonishing 1,760 different Windows builds are made every single day -- more than even the most excitable Windows Insider can handle.
Say what you will about Mr. Torvalds, but that magnificent bastard has smacked down many a foe over the years. This is really sweet. If the only thing Linus ever did was to invent git, then that would have been enough. But no, he had to write an operating system besides. When history is written, Linus's inspiration will shine forth from the Pantheon of greats.
The article summary also leaves out the minor point that MS had to write an entire abstraction layer underneath Git because it's so incapable of handling a large repository.
Not completely true. They call it GVFS, but all it really does is prevent the entire repository from being downloaded when you clone it. Instead it downloads "only what you need". And there are a couple of patches to make git aware that this is happening, so that it stats only what is local and not the whole repository. One might argue that since the developer teams are not working on the entire codebase at once but rather on, let's call them "modules", within the larger repository, then the repository itself should be made more modular that match this development pattern. That would be more inline with the way Git was designed in the first place, and these extensions would not be as necessary. Still, to have the capability is nice.
Just because your favorite version control system can't do something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
No, but pick the right tool for the job. If you are not developing modular, self-contained code in a decentralized fashion, don't use a source control system designed with those explicit goals in mind.
Notice how LibreOffice splits up their fairly large codebase into several smaller repositories,
https://github.com/LibreOffice
Seems to work pretty well for them.
If you try to make Git work like Subversion, you're doing it wrong. Stick with Subversion (or cvs for that matter) if that's what makes you comfortable and if you want to obsess about stuff like branches history. Otherwise read a good tutorial and pick a mainstream branching strategy such as Git flow.
Git branches are fantastic. They make life easier by allowing you to focus on the code without having to deal with side effects of Subversion-style branches, such as broken paths in config files. As for directory renames, if you use Git properly there's no problem.
lucm, indeed.
Get real. Windows has owned the market for 25+ years already and the Western Civilization has become consistently more computerized during that period, which definitely didn't happen because of OpenVMS or QNX or some other wonder of software engineering.
Besides John Deere or Tupperware, not a lot of products have enjoyed such stability.
lucm, indeed.