Why you should not use Git for deployment

medium.com

1 point·kevinsimper··5 comments

> The is a pretty good solution for the problem and that is containers.

"Containers". Strange way to spell "binary packages".

Author here :)

Yes, you are right, it is just easier for a lot of people to reason with the idea of containers. Also binary packages is difficult to distribute, that did facebook show when the scrapped the c++ hiphop compiler that made a big binary.

> Also binary packages is difficult to distribute

Funny. I've never noticed this with `yum install' or `apt-get install'.

And I don't quite see what's doing Facebook with their HipHop in "difficult to distribute" argument.

When you do a `yum install` or `apt-get install` you get some precompiled assets. I have not seen anybody use that for distribution websites.

You can read here about facebook problems on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HipHop_for_PHP

"and it involved a specific time- and resource-consuming deployment process that required a bigger than 1 GB binary to be compiled and distributed to many servers in short order"

What do you use? :)

You were talking about applications in general, I assumed. The world doesn't end on websites. And even then, people rarely deploy two or three versions of the same website on the same machine, and thus, distributing its code as packages gives all the benefits of a package system.

Regarding Facebook, their problems didn't originate from HPHPc producing a binary. Their problems came from ridiculous size of the resulting binary and HPHPc having a subpar support for PHP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com