On 03/04/2015 08:55 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Yes, that article has a few really weak lines of arguments, such as the
> tutorial count.
Here's his definition of the main draw of a DVCS:
No, the only thing that a DVCS gets you, by definition, is that
everyone gets a copy of the full offline history of the entire
repository to do with as you please.
That completely misses the point. What about committing while offline,
'git blame' months-old changes offline, or local branches that don't
have to make it to the server until they have cooked for a while, and so
on and on?
We're not all "facebooks" with multi-GB repos, and I certainly don't
care as much about disk space or bandwidth if losing those features is
the cost.
It gets worse:
Let me tell you something. Of all the time I have ever used DVCSes,
over the last twenty years if we count Smalltalk changesets and
twelve or so if you don’t, I have wanted to have the full history
while offline a grand total of maybe about six times.
I don't know how you can work on anything reasonably complex and
multi-developer without using some of those features six times in a
*week* (sometimes, six times in a *weekend*) let alone 12 years.
--
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