On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 4, 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Luke, you don't have to be peer-to-peer to be decentralized and >> > distributed. People from what I understand bitch most about >> > centralized (and closed) services. >> >> i've covered this in the FAQ i wrote: >> >> FAQ: >> >> Q: is git a "distributed source control system"? >> A: yeees, but the "distribution" part has to be done the hard way, >> by setting up servers, forcing developers and users to configure >> git to use those [single-point-of-failure] servers. so it's >> "more correct" to say that git is a "distributable" source control >> system. > > "Distributed" is not equivalent to "peer to peer". correct. exactly. > Setting up server (git, smart HTTP, ssh) is not that hard. for you and me, and for the majority of people developing git, this is correct. >> proper peer-to-peer networking infrastructure takes care of things >> like firewall-busting, by using UPnP automatically, as part of the >> infrastructure. > > With "smart" HTTP transport support there is no need for any > firewall-busting. the assumption is that the users are capable of deploying a server (at all), and are happy to reconfigure to use that server. ok. this is getting off-topic and is distracting, both for me and for people wishing to read about git. with respect, jakob, i'm going to do something which i don't normally do, and that's begin to be selective about what i reply to. apologies, but i'm on very short timescales to get this code working, for financial reasons. l. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html