|
|
|
|
|
by SBArbeit
765 days ago
|
|
"Cloud-native", to me, means "built to scale up well". I find that's the connotation that most people associate with it. Git, or any file-server based software, is not built to scale up well in today's world. Large Git hosters have to invest entire teams to manage their file servers and their Git front-end systems to create a web-scale service on top of a file-server based piece of software. I'm just skipping to the part where you don't need that anymore because Azure / GCP / AWS PaaS services already handle that. And, in any team dev situation, you're not getting anywhere until you `git push`, and that requires an internet connection. Assuming ~100% connectivity for devs around the world, in the late 2020's, is the right assumption to make. If offline is a hard requirement, Git isn't going anywhere. > through non-http transports like mail yeah, I'm not building a new VCS for that 0.0000001% case. |
|
This doesn't really make any sense. Most people are not "large Git hosters" (and so for them there is no functional difference between "outsourcing Git hosting" and "outsourcing to a Grace hoster that is outsourcing file handling", and even for those who are large Git hosters, they're still going to need a team of sysadm- sorry, "cloud experts" to manage the AWS/Azure/whatever infrastructure.
What actual material benefit is being provided here? It seems to me like it just trades "administrating a standard hosting environment" in for "administrating a vendor-locked hosting environment".