Re: push.default: current vs upstream

[Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

It seems you confuse a centralized workflow with existence of an official
(central) repository. It is not same...

Dmitry