On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. 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.