Comment by matheusmoreira
2 days ago
Completely disagree. Git is fundamentally functional and good. All projects are local and decentralized, and any "centralization" is in fact just git hosting services, of which there are many options which are not even mutually exclusive.
Got works fine and is solid and well enough known to be a reasonable choice for most people.
But I encourage everyone to try out a few alternatives (and adopt their workflows at least for a while). I have no idea if you have or not.
But fine has never used the alternatives, one doesn’t really know just how nice things can be. Or, even if you still find fit to be your preferred can, having an alternative experience can open you to other possibilities and ways of working.
Just like everyone should try a couple of different programming languages or editors or anything else for size. You may not end up choosing it, but seeing the possibilities and different ways of thinking is a very good thing.
Yeah, the decentralized design is incredibly useful in the day-to-day, for ~any project size.
Incorrect. All the features you think are associated with the D in DVCS are perfectly accessible to a more centralized tool.
One of the features I think is associated with the D is the ability to work offline with full access to everything in my repository.
Either you have all data local or you need to send the data around as soon as you traverse or modify history. No not having everything local would be a massive downside for some operations.
2 replies →
Are you missing the central hosting services provide a good backup plan for your locally hosted git?
I agree! They are excellent git backup services. I use several of them: github, codeberg, gitlab, sourcehut. I can easily set up remotes to push to all of them at once. I also have copies of my important repositories on all my personal computers, including my phone.
This is only possible because git is decentralized. Claiming that git is centralized is complete falsehood.