I know that currently that statement (Git centralized) is an oxymoron, but let me explain why would it be interesting. I am currently planifying a 3D project, and I will be having large binary files. If I add a distributed VCS, the amount of disk space required will increase significantly. Due to that, I started looking for an alternative VCS, such as svn, cvs. But none of them satisfied me, mainly because they didn't have the branch concept Git does. I read the bzr docs, and I found that was nearly what I wanted, except for the branch concept git has. I am maybe explaining myself in the wrong way, but I hope someone understands. What I would like, would be the posibility of having something like the history horizon in bzr, or the partial repos that git-annex provides. The idea is to have a repo with all the branches (just the head of them). Another thing I would like to see would be being able to commit like git actually works. Though all the history wouldn't be available, making commits offline would be a great thing, althought later, when pushing, they would be just in the remote, getting erased from local. I tryed to achieve this through porcelain commands, but didn't work the few examples I tryed. I know this breaks with Git's main philosophy, but that is something that would be very great. For what I know, one of the bad things to deal with is that the compression algorithm is thought for text files. I am looking for your answers, Javier Domingo -- 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