FreeBSD Getting Close To Finally Migrating Development From Subversion To Git

[pal666]

freebsd quarterly status report consists of linux wifi, linux app compatibility, linux drm, linux zfs and linux git

[pal666]

For example in Git you can impersonate other users quite easily.

you mean, in git you can commit arbitrary code quite easily? wow, how world didn't explode yet?
don't pull from untrusted sources

[kpedersen]

you mean, in git you can commit arbitrary code quite easily? wow, how world didn't explode yet?
don't pull from untrusted sources

Well without authenticated commits, no source is trusted. So your advice is far too restrictive to be practical.

Luckily many responsible projects provide their own ad-hoc commit hooks for authentication. I just hope that they are each implemented correctly and they haven't had to waste too many man hours needlessly re-inventing the wheel because it isn't built in to Git.

[starshipeleven]

freebsd quarterly status report consists of linux wifi, linux app compatibility, linux drm, linux zfs and linux git

after it has done enough Linux copypaste it will start using Systemd by default too.

[kpedersen]

after it has done enough Linux copypaste it will start using Systemd by default too.

Its probably true. FreeBSD will become the new Linux and Linux will turn into Windows.

[starshipeleven]

Its probably true. FreeBSD will become the new Linux and Linux will turn into Windows.

And Windows will become Slowlaris.

[pal666]

Well without authenticated commits, no source is trusted. So your advice is far too restrictive to be practical.

authenticated commits don't change that, you still have to review them

[kpedersen]

authenticated commits don't change that, you still have to review them

I don't believe many open-source projects have that kind of discipline (heck, most commercial companies don't either). Many of them do this in their free time and as such do not want to do code reviews. Therefore it is still handy to know who did the commit.

[starshipeleven]

I don't believe many open-source projects have that kind of discipline

Have you ever seen any opensource project code repo? It's read-only, at most you can open a PR on some webinterface like Github or send a patch with git-send-email to a mailing list, where some automation will pick it up in a form that can be loaded and merged by a prokject member.

Most opensource projects don't merge shit from contributors unless a project member (that has commit access) actually reviews and endorses the patch. That's the only way to have a half-sane environment

[F.Ultra]

I don't understand why do people still use Subversion...

Because we have no use for a distributed version control and sometimes simpler is better.