• Obsession@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Git is already decentralized - every contributor has a copy of the repo on their own machine.

    At that point, it’s just about using what’s most popular. I have a slight preference toward gitlab myself, but the prevalence of github means I still push most of my projects to there, just because I’m already visiting the website so often.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it is still 1 centralized server that has the code and serves it to you. Its like to say “The internet is federated as i have copied some memes onto my pc”

      • madsen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, that’s not quite how git works. Everyone who’s cloned the repo has a conplete copy of the code — at least at the time they cloned/checked it out. If GitHub, Gitlab, BitBucket or whatever goes away, you can keep working without it, provided that people know how to use a remote from another machine. Git really is decentralized even if people tend to use it in a centralized fashion.

        • james@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with both of you (not sure why the one got so many downvotes).

          Git is not centralized. GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Gitea, is a centralized server.

          These services are more than just git repositories. They’re issue tracking, merge/pull requests, wikis, CI/CD, etc. If the service is lost, the source is still out there but it could be quite the pain to get going again.