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.

▲

compiler-guy 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

ItsHarper 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, the decentralized design is incredibly useful in the day-to-day, for ~any project size.

▲

forrestthewoods 5 days ago | parent [-]

Incorrect. All the features you think are associated with the D in DVCS are perfectly accessible to a more centralized tool.

▲

1718627440 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

forrestthewoods 4 days ago | parent [-]

Nonsense. Be specific. Google, Meta, and every large game studio on the planet use large centralized monorepos. It's not only fine, it's great!

If you use Git it's not possible to "have everything" because Git is not capable of storing everything that needs to be version controlled. Most devs their version control is actually a combination of Git, docker images, and lord knows how many other data sources. It's a miserable nightmare. Good luck and God speed to anyone who tries to build something from just a few years ago, never mind a 10+ year old project!

▲

1718627440 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not talking about what needs to be in Git and what not, I mean for git functionality that analyzes the history (git blame), the data needs to be traversible, i.e. available locally, fetching it over the wire will introduce massive latency. You claimed it doesn't need to be.

> All the features you think are associated with the D in DVCS are perfectly accessible to a more centralized tool.

▲

forrestthewoods 3 days ago | parent [-]

Git Blame sucks and is far far far far far far worse than Perforce Timelapse View.

You moved the goal posts a little bit. You are correct that if you want to work in a cave with no internet then you do need every bit of data to perform at least some operation. That’s not what the D in DVCS means though.

	▲	1718627440 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's exactly what the D means: All the repo data is on every machine, the repo is complete in itself and no repo is any different than the other. For me connecting to the Internet is very much a choice. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have access if I didn't want to, but why would I need it most of the time?

▲

yencabulator 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

the_arun 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you missing the central hosting services provide a good backup plan for your locally hosted git?

	▲	matheusmoreira 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.