Talk:Git/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Reception or Criticism section

I was thinking this page could use a section dedicated to some of the common criticisms of git. One of the most common issues issues I have heard of are with its convoluted UI (mostly in its CLI tools). I would also like to talk about some of the more deeper critiques of git such as those discussed in the following articles by the authors of gitless:

https://spderosso.github.io/onward13.pdf

https://spderosso.github.io/oopsla16.pdf

Does anyone have any other ideas or suggestions for this section?

We also want to make sure we follow the advice in Wikipedia:Criticism

Dosman (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think, the negative aspects of Git, especially highlighted in those papers is not widely accepted criticism of git. Phoe6 (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section missing

I think the article is biased/one-sided/uncritical. It doesn't contain any criticism section. Wikipedia should be unbiased/NPOV so it should contain both the benefits and criticisms of the product.

History should go past 2005

Currently the history section ends at 2005. Surely something should be said about the subsequent history, in particular the significance of releases 1.0 and 2.0 (and backwards compatibility issues, if any). Adpete (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

GIT trademark

Efforts to add a reference to the fact that GIT is a trademark are being reverted, the last one without explanation. This should be in the article because it should be clear that "Git" is a trademark for a particular reversion control system, not the category name for reversion control systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.75.171 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Most product and project names are trademarked, we shouldn't write about this specifically unless it is a particularly notable aspect of this software for some reason. Do you have any secondary sources that indicate this is particularly important? And even if it should be somewhere in the article, it should not be in the lead section. - MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.75.171 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The product name of Git cannot be trademarked(wordmark) because it is a noun. Only the git logo can be trademarked(designmark), the git logo is an artistic rendition by Jason Long is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, and is not in fact a trademark registered or otherwise.Ethanpet113 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not correct, and in fact the word mark Git was registered as U.S. reg. no. 4,680,534, for computer software development tools, on February 3, 2015. I agree it's not worth noting in the article, though. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"directorial, textual or even binary"

The first sentence currently reads: "Git is software for tracking changes in any set of files (directorial, textual or even binary), usually used for coordinating work among programmers collaboratively developing source code during software development." Alexander Davronov added the part that I emphasized. I do not like it because

  1. the term "directorial files" does not exist. Besides, Git cannot track a directory see Git FAQ. Alexander's edit was meant to clarify but this only causes more confusion.
  2. I do not think "any set of files" needs more explanation and the list of file types given is not complete because it does not include symlinks for example.
  3. tracking binary files is an edge case and does not belong in the first sentence. Git's use for source code is much more important.

Regards Dexxor (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dexxor: Hi! I reverted my edit by now. I propose the same contribution with the word «directories» be replaced with a «working tree»as per GIT's glossary.[1]
@Dexxor: ... Git cannot track a directory see ... The source is dubious. Directories are always reinstated when you checkout a commit so non-empty dirs are tracked indirectly: «...Directories are added automatically when adding files inside them. That is, directories never have to be added to the repository, and are not tracked on their own.»[2]
Additionally certain commands accept dirs as arguments .e.g git rm or git update-index.[3][4]
I also see no problem with binaries as images for instance are often routinely kept tracked. There is even extension for git which allows to track huge files. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Git - gitglossary Documentation". git-scm.com. Retrieved 2021-03-23. Working tree - The tree of actual checked out files. The working tree normally contains the contents of the HEAD commit's tree, plus any local changes that you have made but not yet committed.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ a b "Git FAQ - Git SCM Wiki". git.wiki.kernel.org. Retrieved 2021-03-23.
  3. ^ a b "Git - git-rm Documentation". git-scm.com. Retrieved 2021-03-23.
  4. ^ a b "Git - git-update-index - Documentation". git-scm.com. Retrieved 2021-03-23.

New vulnerability

There's a new vulnerability in Git, CVE-2021-21300. Is this worth mentioning? If so, someone please add it under the Security section. I'm not too good at wording new parts of articles. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 01:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: No evidence of coverage so mentioning this makes little sense.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov: Sorry, "Git clone vulnerability announced". The GitHub Blog. 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-23."Analyzing Git Clone Vulnerability". InfoQ. Retrieved 2021-03-23."A vulnerability in Git [LWN.net]". lwn.net. Retrieved 2021-03-23.""git clone" Hit By Vulnerability That Could Lead To Code Execution - Phoronix". www.phoronix.com. Retrieved 2021-03-23. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Git/Archive_5&oldid=1200013964"