3 ms·

That's generally my point: despite the server presenting itself as a centralized "hub", it is really just another decentralized user of a decentralized git repo

That's generally my point: despite the server presenting itself as a centralized "hub", it is really just another decentralized user of a decentralized git repo. From a git perspective, there is no meaningful difference between server and client.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
i prefer to talk about a project's "canonical repository". so for example, the main project i work on has two primary developers, each of us doing a bunch of mostly independent work. we could set things up so that we simply push/pull between those two repositories. but that's a much less useful way to work than to denote a repository somewhere as the "canonical" one, and then all those involved pull from it and push to it. the presence/absence of a server associated with a repo is a bit of a red herring - what matters is the workflow associated with the different repos. my own repo is just a local private one of no particular significance, as is that of my colleague. by contrast, git.ardour.org is canonical (and, as an aside, github.com/Ardour/ardour is merely a mirror).
- MereInterest 3y ago
  Except that there is no such canonical repository. I can set your laptop as a remote and pull from you. You can set my raspberry pi as a remote and pull from me. There is no such thing as a “canonical” repository in git. Such a concept only exists in the systems built on top of git, if it exists at all.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    No, no, you misunderstand. The canonical repository is just an agreement among developers. Nothing more (other than a bit of infrastructure to enable it).
- javier_e06 3y ago
  I like the way L. Torvalds explained here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 where he refers to the circle of trust. A group of developers that each share a copy of the project. Very democratic. Within the circle of trust, of course.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

i prefer to talk about a project's "canonical repository". so for example, the main project i work on has two primary developers, each of us doing a bunch of mostly independent work. we could set things up so that we simply push/pull between those two repositories. but that's a much less useful way to work than to denote a repository somewhere as the "canonical" one, and then all those involved pull from it and push to it. the presence/absence of a server associated with a repo is a bit of a red herring - what matters is the workflow associated with the different repos. my own repo is just a local private one of no particular significance, as is that of my colleague. by contrast, git.ardour.org is canonical (and, as an aside, github.com/Ardour/ardour is merely a mirror).

MereInterest 3y ago
Except that there is no such canonical repository. I can set your laptop as a remote and pull from you. You can set my raspberry pi as a remote and pull from me. There is no such thing as a “canonical” repository in git. Such a concept only exists in the systems built on top of git, if it exists at all.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  No, no, you misunderstand. The canonical repository is just an agreement among developers. Nothing more (other than a bit of infrastructure to enable it).
javier_e06 3y ago
I like the way L. Torvalds explained here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 where he refers to the circle of trust. A group of developers that each share a copy of the project. Very democratic. Within the circle of trust, of course.