Interesting to note that this does not seem like a DVCS in the traditional sense because it depends on coordinating with a central server where all repositories will be hosted. I can't tell if servers can pull/push from eachother.

▲

dofm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So it's more like git in practice than git in principle, I guess.

I am not sure it is much of an issue to implement a centralised system to solve domain-specific problems that are caused by or are in the context of inevitable centralisation.

I can see a bunch of media companies liking this, maybe even small design shops. Quite a lot of CMS and change control work for media is not much more than asset management; version control is often a bit of an afterthought.

Web interfaces to this might end up interesting for non-profits and charities with significant media outreach.

	▲	LoganDark an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Clearly this works for Epic Games internally, so it's not an issue. A top-level comment also makes the more appropriate comparison to Perforce.

▲

applfanboysbgon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is not a DVCS.

> 3.2 Explicit non-goals¶

> Peer-to-peer decentralization. Lore is centralized by design. Two clients communicate through the remote, not directly.

	▲	LoganDark an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Didn't catch that, thanks. I just wanted to point out that 'version control system' does not mean it is like Git, Mercurial, Sapling, etc.