2 ms·

I've read this as a rant about why we should want a fancier SVN. Unsurprising coming from someone working at Github, but hardly representative of what git was m

by wazoox 6y ago

I've read this as a rant about why we should want a fancier SVN. Unsurprising coming from someone working at Github, but hardly representative of what git was made for and can actually do. Centralisation is easier, but generally the wrong solution. Git is distributed by design, and most of the difficulties come from that. Github makes git easier by making it centralised, and that makes it easier to use, but actually make it bad in some other ways : the the recent youtube-dl debacle.

corty 6y ago
It's even worse. Fancier or not, centralized systems are actually bad for usability in a very important way: Users will always manage to break their local checkout or clone somehow. With git (and many other, but not all) decentralized systems, just using a plain filesystem copy as a fallback or backup, the user is easily able to recover. There are better ways, but this is an obvious one that works without the need for extensive tools, training or docs. With centralized systems, or even GitHub, the user is bound to commit/push(--force)/sync at some point, breaking the central instance, which is much harder to recover from.