Comitting From the Bottom Up

My blog reading eyes/ears tend to perk up when I see someone writing about git as this piece of software fascinates me in a potentially unhealthy sort of way. I read a post the other day that talked a bunch about git, and centralized SCM tools like SVN and CVS, as well as the other distributed SCM bazaar. If that last sentence was greek to you, don't worry, I'm heading into a pretty general discussion. Here's the background:

Version control or source control management systems (VCS/SCM), are tools that programmers use to store the code of a program or project as they develop it. These tools store versions of a code base which has a lot of benefits: programmers can work concurrently on a project and distribute their changes regularly to avoid duplicating efforts or working on divergent editions code. SCMs also save your history incase you change something that you didn't intended to you can go back to known working states, or "revive" older features that you'd deleted. SCMs are It's a good thing, and I'd wager that most programmers use some sort of system to track this task. [1]

The basic unit of any version control system is the "commit," which represents a collection or set of changes that a given developer chooses to "check in" to the system. There are two basic models of VCS/SCM: the centralized client/server system and the distributed system. Centralization means that the history is stored on a server or centralized machine, and a group of developers all send and pull changes from that central "repository." Distributed systems give every developer in a project a copy of the full history, and give them the capability of sending or pulling changes from any other developer in a system.

There's a lot of topics about the various merits of both distributed and centralized version control systems, and a lot of this discussion ends up being hashed over technological features like speed and the various ease of various operations or over process features that relate to what a system allows or promotes in terms of workflow. While these discussions are interesting they're too close to the actual programs to see something that I think is pretty interesting.

In centralized systems, "the commit" is something that serves the project's management. If done right (so the theory goes), in a centralized system, only a select few have access to submit changes, as the central server's only way of reconciling diverging versions of a code-base is to accept the first submitted change (poor solution) and the more developers you have the greater the chance of having version collisions. As a result there's a lot less committing that happens. In big projects, you still have to mail patches around because only a few people can commit changes and in smaller teams, people are more likely to "put off committing" because frequent commits of incremental changes are more likely to confuse teammates, and committing amounts to publication.

In distributed systems, since the total "repository" is stored locally, committing changes to your repository and publishing changes with collaborators are separate options. As a result, there's less incentive for developers to avoid creating commits for incremental changes. Rather than have commits mark complete working states with a lot of changes in every individual commit, commits mark points of experimentation in the distributed system.

This difference, is really critical. Commits in a centralized system serve the person who "owns" the repository, whereas in the distributed system they serve the developer. There are other aspects of these programs which affect the way developers relate to their code, but I think on some fundamental level this is really important.

Also, I don't want to make the argument that "bottom up distribution = good and top down centralization = bad," as I think it's more complicated than that. It's also possible to use distributed technology in centralized workflows, and if you use centralized systems with the right team, the top-down limitation isn't particularly noticeable. But as a starting point, it's an interesting analysis.