> >It's really not. Things that are (relatively) simple in the > >database tend to require walking the entire revision > >tree in Git in order to figure the same data out. > > > >Git is awesome for software development, but trying > >to use it as an article development tool is really a bad > >solution in search of a problem. We could've had the > >same argument years ago and said "why use a database, > >SVN stores information in a linear history that's useful > >for articles." Having diverging articles may be cool/ > >desired, but using Git is not the answer. > > > >-Chad > > Fair enough. I learn something new every day. I definitely think that > distributed article editing is a great idea, even if a git-like system is > not the answer to it. > > Thank you, > Derric Atzrott
Git is almost never used in a truly decentralized fashion, so it isn't optimized for that type of use. See git "hub", for example. Actual peer-to-peer is infinitely more scalable ;) because you don't have one poor enterprise Java server getting hit by everyone in the world, instead individuals are distributing the load among themselves. That would be a difficult model for Wikipedia however, because maintaining an authoritative edition would require centralized cryptography, at the least. Allowing articles on our central server to diverge temporarily is easily achievable, with very little overhead. In fact, when you consider the savings in revert wars, maybe there is a net gain. I'm interested in writing a mediawiki extension to allow us to experiment with this idea. -Adam _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
