|
|
|
|
|
|
by rcme
1041 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, I agree that's probably what they meant. And it's a good feature. But it's also not really decentralized. Git, in my opinion, can be decentralized. You can run git locally and get lots of benefits even if you don't use collaboration. Version history and branching being two such examples. But you can't really get any benefits from code review without a centralized place to pass the reviews through. |
|
|
Yes, virtually any decentralized technology can be used in a way that looks like centralization. But as a doctor might suggest, stop doing, to yourself, the thing that hurts.
The fact is, it's entirely possible to use git-appraise without a "centralized git server" just like it is possible to use... decentralized git precisely in such a manner.
Moreover, I can pretty much guarantee that whatever you think "really decentralized" would look like, could be used in basically the exact same ways as git-appraise.
What does it even mean for something to be decentralized if you're talking about using it on a single machine, with a single user? I just can't man, I can't.