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.
I love git, but windows source code management has nothing to do with why it's so fundamentally shit.
How come they didn't go with Mercurial?
is a lot of work. Spying takes some real effort.
At the very least stop letting more into the country.
to stick with Source Depot and we create branches with special names that get merged to/from Git. It's a disaster. We should stick with something that works instead of attempting to use a Git bridge that is just a disaster. Because of this Git has destroyed the productivity of our most senior people. We need to get rid of it as soon as possible or Windows development will become even worse. Why does Git push this broken model by allowing people to still stick with SVN or Source Depot when the right thing is to just use Git?
Linus Torvalds is a programming GOD.
anyone know how they managed the code before moving to Git?
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
ore. The new "Sissy MS" sucks.
When did they stop using Visual Source Safe ?
It's good luck to be superstitious
Microsoft's attempts to look "cool" are all fails: buying Minecraft, Claiming to embrace Linux and GIT.
But their OS is still obnoxious piece of shit spyware adware. Just say no, people. Continue to push your apps and development to the web and serverside to Linux so all Windows become is what runs your web browser, and nothing else.
I ran a git pull origin master, which seemed to work fine, but now I have a bunch of code that's copyright 1993 Digital Equipment Corporation?
The work they've done to make Git scale to fit their needs sounds great, and I see they've open-sourced the key components. That's awesome. At the moment it looks like GVFS is Windows-only (not a big surprise -- and not a complaint; they built what they needed). I'd like to see someone port it to Linux and make this infrastructure more broadly available. It sounds like it would be much nicer to work on than the "repo" tool that Android layers on top of Git to enable managing a whole bunch of smaller repositories.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
https://xkcd.com/1597/
I really, really hope those 1900 unreviewed pushes are all developers just wanting to make sure their code is backed up and are pushes to private branches.
you gotta let just about any ol git use it.
You obviously didn't RTFA. They had to create this GVFS thing because their code base is huge and they don't want to sync hundreds of gigs between remote locations. Also they were not using VSS before switching to Git, they were using Perforce.
It's not a WTF. It's a great achievement and will probably become a standard component of large-scale git repos. If you ever had to deal with huge repos that are used by teams in many timezones you'd understand that.
For reference, the Linux kernel git repo is about 6GB all in. The Windows git repo is 300GB. We can all guess that in that 300GB there's a fair amount of dead wood but still, in an era where storage is dirt cheap, one shouldn't have to trim down a code source repo because the vcs can't keep up.
lucm, indeed.
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.
Larry McVoy, eat you hat! :)
It's like running Gentoo!
nt
The Dear Leader always gets the glory, but the real work is done by everyone else.
with 8,500 code pushes made per day and 6,600 code reviews each day
Dang. We can't get away with that where I work.
Let microsoft windows customers compile their own windows with just the items they need or want.
Unfortunately "generic storage engine"s don't do well under Windows as demonstrated by the lack of WinFS.
A long long time ago (like late 90s) Microsoft bought, whole hog, the source to Perforce and created "Source Depot". Something they never released to the public. I believe this is what the Windows team used. While I do think they might have been able to sell Source Depot as a product, I'm not sure they could have open sourced it.
The fact that GVFS can even be open sourced is also probably another reason for making the move.
Comment removed based on user account deletion