4 ms·

This is where I got the idea, http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki Please see

• stormbrew 12y ago
  Ok. I think that is a relatively accurate description of some normal git processes, but I don't think that's saying what you're getting from it. You may be taking too strong a meaning of the 'ownership' concepts described there (and I think they're stated too strongly). No one owns a branch name in git, not even the person who first makes it. You own the branches in your own local repository, and you can choose how and if you share them, but it is perfectly possible to do shared work on a branch if you have a shared repo to work from (and even, with some extra work, without one). This is basically a Zooko's triangle[1] problem, where git has chosen decentralized and meaningful, which necessarily implies a rejection of ownership (even to the extent that Fossil wiki page implies). But in the end, most branches in git are focused on a piece of work and not who made them (it's mostly the 'lieutenants' in the linux model who would have personal branches). Single-author branches may be more common in git because it definitely does make those easier than other possibilities, but there is nothing stopping collaboration on a shared branch in git. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle