
Why you should not use Git for deployment - kevinsimper
https://medium.com/@kevinsimper/why-you-should-not-use-git-for-deployment-e0590bcb185c
======
dozzie
> The is a pretty good solution for the problem and that is containers.

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

~~~
kevinsimper
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.

~~~
dozzie
> 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.

~~~
kevinsimper
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](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? :)

~~~
dozzie
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.

