[_heimdall]

git is linear, if multiple users have a different main branch history you have a problem.

Pull requests in github is actually very similar conceptually to a consensus mechanism used in crypto currencies. Everyone has an identical copy of the main branch with an identical history of every commit in order, a PR is saying "I think this commit goes next" and, if you use code reviews, the PR approval is consensus.

[bugbuddy]

This is the most unhinged thing I have ever read about git ever. Please share whatever you are hitting.

Have you ever seen a git graph? Does this look linear? https://tortoisegit.org/docs/tortoisegit/images/RevisionGrap...

[_heimdall]

Have you considered that the single source of truth, the chain that has consensus in the blockchain terminology, is the main/primary branch?

All secondary branches are works in progress that may be proposed as new commits to main.

Sticking with the blockchain comparison, every side branch in got is akin to potential blocks that miners are working on.

[bugbuddy]

Well, that’s it. I am done with this site.

[_heimdall]

Hah, sounds good. I still don't get your argument here, I would be curious to hear more.

My point is that git is a data store involving a genesis block (initial commit), blocks of changes/diff's, tracked in sequential order, and with a form of consensus (code reviews and merges to primary).

What is missing that makes it not a blockchain?

And my caveat here, I can't stand arguments for cryptocurrencies and have never purchased any. Blockchain as a concept is fine, and git is a blockchain as best I can tell.

[lagniappe]

Let it go