- 15,524
- 769
Not really. I used RHEL, but I should have used CentOS. RHEL, CentOS, and Scientific Linux are pretty much the same beast. All ship with outrageously outdated software, and a sane sysadmin will often reject requests to update. The problem is that version a of one piece of system software will rely on a "feature" of version b of another piece of system software. Developers of that other piece of software later deem that "feature" to be a misfeature, or even worse, a bug, and remove it. Linux distros are carefully choreographed selections of specific versions of open source software. Updating one piece of system software may break something else, which is why sysadmins oftentimes reject update requests.Carno Raar said:That's a lot of old technology!
CentOS, Scientific Linux, and a host of other Linux distros all derive from Redhat Enterprise Linux. Redhat by choice takes a conservative approach, which makes their system software (and that of derivatives) oftentimes be quite old. That's fine for server farms that need extremely high reliability and very, very little downtime. That's not so fine elsewhere. We're looking to migrate our server (which doesn't need international banking level reliability) to Ubuntu.
It turns out our sysadmin intentionally downgraded git to 1.7.1 because another requested piece of "free" software for project management and issue tracking initially didn't support anything beyond that version of git. That constraint has gone away; we should be upgrading git "any day now".
Underneath the hood, there's very little difference between Mercurial and git. Both are free, both are distributed version control systems. They differ somewhat in presentation to the user. There's a lot to be said for a distributed VCS, even in the case where the "official" version of the software is at some central repo. There almost always is a central repo, even with open source. As a linux distro developer, are you going to use J. Random Hacker's version of the linux core, or are you going to pull from https://www.kernel.org?I am wondering why git was chosen. Generally one picks git when everyone is able to branch and pull and you don't have a single centralised repo. Your organisation, along with many commerical outfits, sounds like it would be happier with a centralised system and single release manager. Something like SVN or Mercurial.
Subversion is nice in that it's interface is simple, and it is easy to use. Mercurial tried to emulate this ease-of-use. Ease-of-use (or lack thereof) isn't an issue with linux (do "man ls"), and hence it isn't an issue with git. That's my main gripe about git. Subversion isn't nice in a number of ways. It isn't a distributed VCS, it has these nasty things called "tree conflicts", and a move is a copy, add, and delete. (Aside: Even git occasionally reverts to subversion's stupidity in this regard. I recently moved a file in git, but instead of a rename I got a copy, add, and delete.)
Last edited: