[jlgreco]

Presumably the difference is that you don't have to pull/push. Can't say doing that ever bothered me though.

Edit: actually it looks like most people use a bare repo on dropbox so you still push/pull from it. I don't understand the use-case at all then.

[beagle3]

If you have a bare repo in dropbox, you are essentially using dropbox servers as your git server; except it might silently drop stuff in all replicas on a merge conflict. Or whenever it fancies (dropbox had at least one all-replica data loss bug before). But in return, you don't have to do a 'git push' or 'git pull' or 'git-legit sync'.

Personally, I think it's stupid. If it's a non-secret project, host it on github and do a '[le]git sync' every few minutes (from a cronjob, if you insist).

If you don't want to expose it on github, why on earth do you trust dropbox to keep it?

[jlgreco]

Hell, doesn't bitbucket support git now? Just use them if your project is uber-secret.

[beagle3]

You're doing it wrong. If your project is uber-secret, you have to host it yourself - not under a big sign that says "come and try to get super secret source code out of me" just above the small "bitbucket" or "paid github" sign.

[jlgreco]

bitbucket has free private repos. If dropbox is private enough for you, bitbucket should be as well.

Obviously I just keep my private repos on my own server. Who doesn't have their own server these days anyway?

[ajasmin]

Not having to pull/push is also nice. If you just start editing a file and want to keep working on your laptop at the cafe without having to commit anything.