Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On Behalf > Of Jerry Feldman > > Thanks for the responses. In essence, my company uses CVS, but here in the > Boston Office we will be using GIT. Since we have a very small development > team, GIT seems to be a good fit. Over the years I have used many source > control projects ranging from IBM mainframe to SCCS, RCS, ClearCase, and > many others. I don't think the git command set is overly large. I think the > major issue is conceptual. Since I have been in this office we have not had > too much development other than some customizations for clients, but we > now have 2 experienced developers (including me) and 2 junior developers > in the office. Most of our development will probably be in scripting for some > of the new products we now have in our inventory. While most of our > projects will involved no more than 2 people, I do need to make sure that all > the data is backed up properly. Although there's nothing *wrong* with what you're saying, you seem to be applying the opposite of logic. A small development team is very conducive to svn (centralized) and you get benefits by doing so, as mentioned in my other email. And, since you have a small development team, you don't get the main benefits offered by git (decentralized.) With a decentralized system, the backup plan is unclear... Literally everyone's laptop or workstation or whatever they're using must be backed up. N times the data to backup, if you're supporting N users. But obviously if centralized, you just backup the central repo, and then you can make a calculated assessment of risk, to backup peoples' laptops or not.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |