Re: An interesting opinion on DVCS/git
- From
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
- Date
- Mar 9, 2015, 14:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4949A08A7B0445C2953FDB0F0C870BF0@PhilipOakley>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kZ8CrjwVh3+OHSV1tv+fRXaDZ_diOO5E7QnSLZ=HTFSfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Stefan Beller" <sbeller@google.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 3:29 AM
> bitquabit.com/post/unorthodocs-abandon-your-dvcs-and-return-to-sanity > --
The part that the author misses is not all the nice (or not so) stuff about having a copy of the full repository locally, for all the reasons he mentions, rather it is the *distribution of control*.
In most centralised repo systems there is also centralisation of control. The user does not have control. I may initiate a request for change, but it's authorisation is always somewhere else, to avoid my accidental pollution of the golden source.
The thing that a DVCS brings to the user is an ability to regain a little control of their own environment and to include version recording within it. The fact that it can be integrated seamlessly into the golden source makes it a great tool providing a win-win for all, especially when a Hub environment provides a separation between the golden source and the user's perambulations and peregrinations that they'd like on a safe server.
It is the distribution of Control, not the distribution of Code that makes DVCS such a winner (for users). The distribution of all the code is icing on the cake (though natural in a FOSS project). -- Philip