At this point I’m very concerned about the open source industry relying so much on github. You have to remember that any project there can be swept away overnight because it doesn’t fit into the agenca of a large company, for example.
At this point I’m very concerned about the open source industry relying so much on github. You have to remember that any project there can be swept away overnight because it doesn’t fit into the agenca of a large company, for example.
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.
Exactly. Isn’t decentralized itself since it’s not a platform but by being “indipendent” and not entangled with anything you can just copy it entirely and host it somewhere else.
Git being snapshot-based unlike other (better) VCSs require that patch order matter so often the easiest way to manage a project is to have some centralized authority since it is so, so easy to get merge conflicts without a central authority if trying to just distribute patches. It’s a lot easier to be decentralized without Git’s fundamental limitations.
What version control software in particular do you find better than git?
Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.
How can I subscribe to the answer?