3 ms·

You’re looking for someone to suggest an alternative to a DVCS - git is the winner in that category. But if you go one step backwards and ask “do you really nee

You’re looking for someone to suggest an alternative to a DVCS - git is the winner in that category. But if you go one step backwards and ask “do you really need distributed”, the answer for the vast, vast, vast majority of people is no, for the vast vast majority of use cases. To use your analogy it’s as if we all used rsync because it’s the best remote file management tool, but we use it locally because everyone else uses it.

capitainenemo 2y ago
My favourite rant on this subject. https://www.bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs-and-return-to-sanity/ https://www.bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs... Now svn does have things I miss from the Mercurial world.. grep --all, fa --deleted, revsets, phases.. some could be implemented serverside in svn, but svn dev lost a lot of momentum post-DVCS (git esp). But DVCS has issues that aren't an issue in svn land. History consistency, simple reliable narrow/shallow, people can work on files independently without syncing. (and a significantly more complex dvcs process)
diggan 2y ago
> the answer for the vast, vast, vast majority of people is no, for the vast vast majority of use cases. With GitHub being the top platform for sharing source code and as the top choice for the basket of all our eggs, I'd wager we need DVCSs more than people need or appreciate today. And that's just considering how often GitHub is down today. If we start to emphasize with people who have really shitty internet connections (which is a larger part of the world than you seem to think), we can start to understand why it's really useful to be able to share our code with our co-workers on our local network without having to rely on terrible, minimum 5s latency connections to US companies who basically don't care about you.
- forrestthewoods 2y ago
  Nah. GitHub is evidence that 99.999% of projects are defacto centralized. The D is DVCS is useless to approximately all projects not Linux. Note: centralized does not mean you can’t work in offline mode or share basic deltas

capitainenemo 2y ago

My favourite rant on this subject. https://www.bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs-and-return-to-sanity/ https://www.bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs... Now svn does have things I miss from the Mercurial world.. grep --all, fa --deleted, revsets, phases.. some could be implemented serverside in svn, but svn dev lost a lot of momentum post-DVCS (git esp). But DVCS has issues that aren't an issue in svn land. History consistency, simple reliable narrow/shallow, people can work on files independently without syncing. (and a significantly more complex dvcs process)

diggan 2y ago

> the answer for the vast, vast, vast majority of people is no, for the vast vast majority of use cases. With GitHub being the top platform for sharing source code and as the top choice for the basket of all our eggs, I'd wager we need DVCSs more than people need or appreciate today. And that's just considering how often GitHub is down today. If we start to emphasize with people who have really shitty internet connections (which is a larger part of the world than you seem to think), we can start to understand why it's really useful to be able to share our code with our co-workers on our local network without having to rely on terrible, minimum 5s latency connections to US companies who basically don't care about you.

forrestthewoods 2y ago
Nah. GitHub is evidence that 99.999% of projects are defacto centralized. The D is DVCS is useless to approximately all projects not Linux. Note: centralized does not mean you can’t work in offline mode or share basic deltas