| ▲ | globular-toast 2 hours ago | |||||||
A "local remote" is a contradiction. Unless the remote is on a different disk you are just wasting space. Even then the point of remotes is for sharing, not for backup/redundancy. | ||||||||
| ▲ | orev 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
What if you have a few local machines you’re using for development, and want to keep them in sync? This method allows that single central repo without having to bounce all the code through a cloud hosting service. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | Zambyte 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
The remote can be a shared directory that multiple users have access to, and the working directory is private where each user only has private read + write access. | ||||||||