Re: push.default: current vs upstream

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM, demerphq [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6 April 2012 20:03, Dmitry Potapov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, demerphq [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 6 April 2012 13:38, Dmitry Potapov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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