On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:56 AM, PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Karsten Wade <kwade at 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.