On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:56 AM, PatrickD Garvey patrickdgarveyt@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
Git (and other DVCS systems) takes a bit of a different mental approach than a traditional hub-and-spoke model. Each Git repo contains a complete history of all changes from each other repo, so the changes and history are distributed rather than centralized. In that case, it's all duplicates, from my local git checkout to each other checkout. Where we say e.g. git.centos.org is a central repository, that is more a convention we choose rather than a limitation (feature) of the Git software.
I think that paragraph confirms my suspicion that I need never move code from one git to another, but there is some mechanism by which the people using each notify their git about the other and code is shared across the gap semi-automatically. This is where I expect experience to inform me better than generous attempts to explain it ahead of time.
Tastes, and workflow, vary tremendously. It's not usually feasible to keep track of *all* the forks, because remote developers can make forks of each other forks, with no record of what the other forks are. And it's not usually a "push" mechanism to transimit code to other repositories: usually it's a "notify the other user, and give them a target to pull from at their leisure".
The reason for using GitHub is that it has become something akin to "social coding". It is now a normal behavior to fork a GitHub repo, make changes, and offer them back via a pull request. It's a very low barrier for people interested in offering subtle-to-big code changes, documentation changes, etc. (vs joining a mailing list to submit a patch.)
This seems to indicate there is some human-to-human communication cost to sharing across two git domain names. Again, I look to my future experience for a deeper understanding.
It can be automated, but that can be.... adventuresome of both are considered "writable" repositories for non-automated procedures.
I've seen indications there are some objections to using GitHub from some quarters. Are you saying GitHub is closed source? I had meant to investigate the rumblings for enlightenment. One only has so much time to learn the basic knowledge and I often defer the cultural knowledge investigations.
Github is my friend for many projects. What it lacks is free "private group" repositories, like "bitbucket" has.
Thanks, Nico.
It definitely sounds like I need to actually use git to come to a full understanding of how it can be used and how I will endeavor to use it.