Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickpsecurity | Hacker News Reader

"I'm sorry to be rude, but, it sounds like you should go learn Git and come back to this conversation."

It looks like it.

"The decentralized design does avoid single points of failures, and everyone does have a copy. "

So, like many decentralized systems I've used, a master node gets worked around by other nodes who communicate in another way? Or would some retarded situation be possible where...

"Unfortunately (maybe..) everyone has put their master repos in the same place, which somewhat counteracts the decentralization."

...one node going down could prevent collaboration? Oh, you answered that. That sounds better than CVS but shit by distributed systems standards. I'll still learn it anyway since everyone is using it. Probably in next week or two.

View on HN

No, it's not the same as a distributed system with master/slave nodes. The child nodes can function entirely in isolation from the parent. If you wanted to, you could treat another coworker's node as your master and download/upload to that. It's usually easier to have a tree structure where the root is your master repo, its children are your build servers or whatever, and the leaves are development machines. But that's entirely reconfigurable.

It's not surprising at all that if you make a master repo at the root of the tree, and it goes down, then you can't communicate it. But it doesn't prohibit any communication between other nodes, or re-wiring the tree, and it definitely doesn't inherently block development work on any of the other nodes.

It just so happens, though, that people's build scripts and package managers like to refresh packages from the root and don't handle failures modes of that operation very well. That's the only place problems emerge - besides the obvious fact that if your public releases of software go through the root, and the root is down, then you can't release until it's up. But you could easily make a new root if you wanted to.

"It just so happens, though, that people's build scripts and package managers like to refresh packages from the root and don't handle failures modes of that operation very well. "

That's the critical part. So, countering this risk is apparently a manual thing if one uses off-the-shelf tooling for Git. I'll just have to remember to look at that if I do a deployment. Put it on a checklist or something.

>So, countering this risk is apparently a manual thing if one uses off-the-shelf tooling for Git.

Not so much off-the-shelf tooling for Git, its more off-the-shelf tooling for Node/Ruby/Go/Rust/PHP.

Nothing about Node's npm really requires it to depend on a single GitHub, in fact I think you can use any Git repo. Its just that most tend to use a single Git repo, and there is no way to configure mirrors.

Thanks for the extra detail.

"and there is no way to configure mirrors."

Its that in Git itself or the project-specific tooling you're mentioning?

There is no way to configure mirrors with the project-specific tooling (AFAIK).

Git, (and like most other DVCS) supports mirroring. For example Linux, hosted on Github, (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commits/master) is also mirrored and hosted on kernel.org (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/). Or, the apache projects (https://github.com/apache/cassandra), which are also hosted on apache.org (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git). Generally when commits are merged with upstream, they are mirrored to all other hosts.

The tools, however, are generally configured with only the GitHub address (or the author of the tool only publishes to GitHub), and the tools (unlike say Perl's CPAN) don't offer to maintain mirrors of the libraries published. So when github is down, a tool like npm will give up, even though the author could have another git repo host elsewhere.

So, the protocol is definitely good enough to handle situations like this but just commonly applied that way esp with many Github-hosted projects. Gotcha. That makes sense.

Git is very flexible and does not even require repo-to-repo communication over the wire at all; patches can be emailed among contributors and then committed and tracked locally. Branching and merging is so fast and easy in git that every participant can have a slightly different repo for a given project, incorporating shared changes as they see fit.

Github is popular because it is opinionated--it chooses to use git in certain ways, thus reducing the complexity for people who aren't git experts (i.e. most people).

The most sophisticated users of git--the Linux and git projects, probably--do not rely on github at all. As far as I know, they share code via emailed patches. Some of those developers might not even be using git at all! They just send patches upstream, and the upstream developer checks the patches into their local git repo and then preps a larger patch to be emailed farther upstream.

That's pretty wild. Sounds like main program/protocol is very true to the UNIX philosophy of tooling. My early reads on it suggested that gave it both it's power/versatility and horrific UI consequences for beginners. An opinionated UI and host like Github is a natural consequence.

I remember thinking in my early reading that git was like an assembly language for build systems. It really needed a front-end of some kind to smooth things over for new and casual users. Maybe not as heavyweight as Github but better than the main program. Can keep the low-level stuff in for advanced users.

Was that or is that still a common assessment or was my initial impression off?

There have been a number of attempts to build a more friendly front-end for git:

https://git-scm.com/download/gui/linux

Github (which provides a desktop app in addition to their website) is by far the most successful one, I think because they define a whole simplifed and social experience, not just a client.

To me it seems like people seem to segment into two camps: those who want to do the basics (they tend to use GitHub), and those who want to use the full power of git (they tend to use the CLI).

> For example Linux, hosted on Github, (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commits/master) is also mirrored and hosted on kernel.org (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/).

It's the opposite: Linux is hosted on kernel.org, and the mirror on github.com is just something that was created during a kernel.org outage. The canonical address is the kernel.org one.

(The Linux repository on kernel.org, by the way, is one of the oldest git repositories; IIRC, it was created when git was only a few weeks old.)

This is a social problem, not a technical one.

It's a pebkac issue. The software is fully capable of having multiple remotes, but it's rarely used that way.

Lol. Nicely put.

Is there an easy config for that? Suppose I want to push to eg github and bitbucket (without sharing my creds with ifttt or similar)? Is a post-receive hook on a local pseudo-master the way to go?

See, for example, here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14290113/git-pushing-code...

    git remote set-url --add --push origin git://original/repo.git
    git remote set-url --add --push origin git://another/repo.git

Reply on news.ycombinator.com