Re: push.default: current vs upstream

[demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>]

On 6 April 2012 20:03, Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 April 2012 13:38, Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com> 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.

>> The self-selected users of git IMO would tend to
>> both have the motivation and the basic skills to learn whatever they
>> need and are unlikely to blame their mistakes on git. The ones forced
>> to use git are *very* likely to say "git is broken", or "git doesn't
>> work" and then start arguing that "cvs never had that problem". Do you
>> really want a bunch of users of your software thinking CVS was
>> superior?
>
> Git is a distributed version control system. There is another VCS whose
> whole designed was dictated by being a better CVS. It's called SVN and
> if someone is happy with it, why do not use it?

Because it sucks.

> I think git default settings should respect the main goal of git design:
> a good support of a distributed workflow. Certainly git can be used in
> many other ways: some people use it with a centralized workflow, some
> use it to back up their configuration files, etc.. But those usage
> should not dictate the default settings for git.

I stick to my original point, it should be aimed at making dumb people
happy. The rest will sort themselves out.

Yves

-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"