On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Luke, you don't have to be peer-to-peer to be decentralized and
>> > distributed.  People from what I understand bitch most about
>> > centralized (and closed) services.
>>
>> i've covered this in the FAQ i wrote:
>>
>> FAQ:
>>
>> Q: is git a "distributed source control system"?
>> A: yeees, but the "distribution" part has to be done the hard way,
>>    by setting up servers, forcing developers and users to configure
>>    git to use those [single-point-of-failure] servers.  so it's
>>    "more correct" to say that git is a "distributable" source control
>>    system.
>
> "Distributed" is not equivalent to "peer to peer".

 correct.  exactly.

quoted text
> Setting up server (git, smart HTTP, ssh) is not that hard.

 for you and me, and for the majority of people developing git, this is correct.

quoted text
>> proper peer-to-peer networking infrastructure takes care of things
>> like firewall-busting, by using UPnP automatically, as part of the
>> infrastructure.
>
> With "smart" HTTP transport support there is no need for any
> firewall-busting.

 the assumption is that the users are capable of deploying a server
(at all), and are happy to reconfigure to use that server.

 ok.

 this is getting off-topic and is distracting, both for me and for
people wishing to read about git.  with respect, jakob, i'm going to
do something which i don't normally do, and that's begin to be
selective about what i reply to.  apologies, but i'm on very short
timescales to get this code working, for financial reasons.

l.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html