4 ms·
>I don't have particular reason to believe that balancing users needs would come out in favor of the current behavior. Gitlab and Github (rightfully imo) came
by jayd16 6y ago
>I don't have particular reason to believe that balancing users needs would come out in favor of the current behavior.
Gitlab and Github (rightfully imo) came to this behavior. It was not random and is not the default git behavior which is to just allow the force push and all the chaos afterward. If you don't like it, mark your master branches as unprotected. However, there's clear reasons for the current defaults.
- horsawlarway 6y agoIt's ok, I'm not really convinced the poster above you actually understands how distributed systems work. They seem entirely stuck in the assumption that there's a more powerful entity in the relationship that can arbitrate interactions between individuals.
- a1369209993 6y agoTechnically, I think their problem is assuming that it's acceptable for there to be such a entity, not that one necessarily exists. And then misinterpreting/misrepresenting git's semi-intentional exclusion of such a entity as a bug when in fact it's a feature.
- rakoo 6y agoThey don't think it's a bug, they think it's something that is desirable (and git might not be the right tool for the job)
- wpietri 6y agoI'm not sure that that such an entity is truly necessary to get a lot of the functionality. However, in the case of git, I'd guess 95% or more of users in effect do have a such an entity. Github is $7.5 billion worth of proof that most people are cool with effectively centralized source code management.