4 ms·

Everyone uses git as a centralized vcs. You could remove the distributed part and 99% of people wouldn't notice. The killer feature was branches, which are orth

• globular-toast 3y ago
  Case in point. I take it you don't remember (or don't know) that truly centralised systems like Subversion required a network connection just to make a commit? The commit happened in the repository. There was no local clone. You could check stuff out. That was it.
  • yCombLinks 3y ago
    Yeah, I've used subversion a bit. The DAG aspect and commits do not require a distributed system. I'm talking about the idea that git users would pull commits directly from other users and "build consensus" across the network, rather than push and pull from a central repo
  • steveBK123 3y ago
    Yes. I've never had a job in 20 years across 7 companies where I could code and not be on the corporate network. I am on a person device, remoting into a corporate network desktop, from which I am then ssh'ing into a linux box. Walking around with code on a local machine is practically a fireable offense. For the vast majority of companies signing up for Github/Gitlab/whatever licenses, the remote/decentralized part of git is pointless. So the decentralized aspects of git just add a layer of complexity/indirection for a lot of use cases. Many extra "git pull"s in my workday.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • globular-toast 3y ago
      Yeah tbh I don't understand why you corporate guys use it either. I had a corporate job once. Hated it. They used git but, yeah, it could have been anything centralised. But for my purposes and I guess most people using git it's really important that it's decentralised.