On 5/26/23, Dr. Jürgen Sauermann <mail@jürgen-sauermann.de> wrote: > I would like to share another anecdote with you.
Thanks for sharing. Now we have some experience in common and not only in technology ;) Sorry that it happened to you. I believe that such society is broken, but that's another matter. Git has a distributed store. That means that every user has a server of their own. What happened on your server will be therefore replicated to others. But they are not obliged to get your changes, that's part of a project workflow. In your case this is what your company did by requiring that all employees should commit into the same branch. That's fine as long as there are only few trusted parties which wasn't actually the case. It wasn't you who should be fired, but it's your manager who certainly should. So, I think that your mistrust in Git is actually misdirected. You shouldn't trust your company' workflow here, that's what was broken. Consider what might happen if they would put inexperienced admin to maintain your company' SVN server? What if he would corrupt it' repository? Should SVN be held responsible? BTW, in your case it was just a matter of reverting that single bad commit, the repository was actually intact and safe. The data were not lost due to a mistake! BTW, I did put "complexity" in quotes and added an emoji to indicate that an irony was intended. I don't think that SVN is too bad, it was my own inexperience that got me in trouble. P.S. There are big projects that use hundreds of short living branches to coordinate work of dozens of developers for many years. They have huge repositories and a good workflow. Git saves them expensive storage space, valuable time and network traffic in their work. It makes a one-time contribution very easy for volunteers. Check out NixOS for example. But it's not a silver bullet and it can't prevent shooting yourself in the foot. Neither could Subversion or any other software. Have a nice day
