|
|
|
|
|
|
by q0uaur
804 days ago
|
|
|
i'm sure there's lots of people who use a decentralized workflow, but... in the big picture, it seems it has to be a vanishingly small minority. unless i have a wrong idea about what decentralized means in this case? the way i see it, pretty much every project has an "upstream" which is in effect a central location where the development of a codebase happens. and with how easy it is to set up a git server, with all the advantages that having a server for it brings, i just don't see why some people make such a big deal out of it. don't get me wrong, things like being able to pull a repo to have it locally, and work on it independently from a server, without internet connection, is a vital point for any version control, and i see a lot of value in git-send-email (sr.ht's way of doing things), but in the end there usually does end up being a central location for the code, so why not embrace it? |
|
|
Yes, it's a vital point for any version control system. And that's exactly the reason why everyone moved to Git. Because every popular version control system at the time required an internet connection for everything. It was difficult to do any meaningful work offline, or even online for that matter. Server outages, performance issues, hard to scale, etc. So painful to work with for big projects in particular that Linus Torvalds threw their entire version control system in the trash and wrote his own, arguably better, decentralized version control system. I'm sure Microsoft employees, especially the ones working on Windows pre-git-migration, can tell you all about the drawbacks of centralized version control systems. For sure, go ahead and embrace the centralized workflow if you want to, grab a copy of more traditional version control system software, but it will be as painful to work with as it was back then.