On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM, demerphq <demerphq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6 April 2012 20:03, Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, demerphq <demerphq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 6 April 2012 13:38, Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Seriously, why do you care about beginners who use a centralized workflow >>>> and not beginners who have to use with existing projects that use more or >>>> less distributed workflow, >>> >>> Because the former are unlikely to be self-selected users of git and >>> instead are likely to be forced to use git because their $work has >>> dictated it to be so. >> >> Any decision is made by people. On its own, $work does not dictate what >> VCS or what workflow should be used. There are many ways for those who >> are in charge to screw up things. And a centralized workflow is not very >> scalable and many bad practices associated with it. While it is not easy >> to to convert a CVS/SVN repository to git that alone does not bring most >> of git advantages, because those advantages come from the workflow. > > Pretty well every project that uses git has a "canonical upstream > repository". Including for instance this one. Which basically means at > some point there is a centralized master repo. It is either owned by > someone like Linus or Junio, or it is owned by a company. Companies > tend to like to know that their valuable data is properly backed up, > and etc. This basically means central repos are inevitable. And git > works just fine like that thank you very much. It seems you confuse a centralized workflow with existence of an official (central) repository. It is not same... Dmitry -- 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