Putting the generic term into your corporation's name can be effective means of claiming things that don't belong to you.
Jon Postel reserved 44.0.0.0/8 for a generic purpose: "amateur radio digital communications." Decades later, there was a successful heist when some enterprising individuals incorporated "Amateur Radio Digital Communications LLC" and misrepresented to ARIN that the assignment had actually been theirs. Immediately after ARIN gave them transfer rights, they pocketed 8 figures reselling the space to Amazon.
Github obviously isn't making explicit claims like this but they benefit whenever people with purchasing power implicitly understand that github is the only option.
That assumption has come up in almost every conversation I’ve ever had with semi-technical people regarding git, so the confusion is just a fact. It happens so often, I think Linus (or whoever controlled the git trademarks at the time) should have demanded GitHub change their name when it was launched.
I was expecting the use of non-SSH git remotes without network access. Any mounted file system can be a valid remote such as a USB drive. I use file-based remote to keep some repos encrypted on S3 using Rclone.
For example, `git remote -v` would show:
`secure-s3 /mnt/fuse/rclone/secure-s3/git/$REPO.git`
I think concurrency is a problem with file-based remotes but for one person keeping a desktop and laptop in sync it is much simpler than running a VPS.
You can also have multiple independent git repos that don't duplicate the full object store, via git clone --reference. It's less relevant in the container era, but otherwise it can save a lot of time and disk space when cloning repos repeatedly
What's the purpose of this? I don't get it. Why push at all to "local remote", if you can just keep your changes on a local branch, and push it whenever "remote remote" becomes available again?
I use this to push changes to a local encrypted sparse bundle image, and then I periodically rsync that image to a remote disk. Git has no built in encrypted storage, so pushing directly to a remote means you trust that remote.
A decade ago I was working with an intern who wasn’t allowed access to push to any branch. As I wanted him to get experience with the development cycle, I set up a bare repo in a shared Dropbox folder and had him push code there.
Aside from that unique use case, I might consider this for storing code on a network attached drive (archival).
I am also seriously puzzled and don't see the point. Why push to a local remote if the real remote is not reachable? The branch is still not leaving your machine, you are just making a copy of it in another place and now have to manage `local/` refs in addition to `origin/`.
"local" can also be a network fileshare. It could also be in a directory that is treated differently than your other checkouts - whether that's something like deployment, sharing over the web, running CI, etc.
you can also setup a local remote which hardlinks the index so it doesn't occupy more space. Why? Idk. You don't want to share stash, rerere-cache, branches whatever.
Also handy if you're running an agent in a container on the local fs. Set up a local clone, contain the agent to that repo folder and have it hack away on that. Later, you step out of the container and do the syncing. You can't use worktrees in this situations.
Bare repos are also pretty cool. You can clone the git mailing list as a bare repo and search for threads there instead of setting up an mbox (same for the kernel obviously)
A "local remote" is a contradiction. Unless the remote is on a different disk you are just wasting space. Even then the point of remotes is for sharing, not for backup/redundancy.
What if you have a few local machines you’re using for development, and want to keep them in sync? This method allows that single central repo without having to bounce all the code through a cloud hosting service.
The remote can be a shared directory that multiple users have access to, and the working directory is private where each user only has private read + write access.
GitHub has been such a staple of the modern dev that some are now (re)discovering git is distributed.
Everything old is new again. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people that thought GitHub invented git.
> thought GitHub invented git
Putting the generic term into your corporation's name can be effective means of claiming things that don't belong to you.
Jon Postel reserved 44.0.0.0/8 for a generic purpose: "amateur radio digital communications." Decades later, there was a successful heist when some enterprising individuals incorporated "Amateur Radio Digital Communications LLC" and misrepresented to ARIN that the assignment had actually been theirs. Immediately after ARIN gave them transfer rights, they pocketed 8 figures reselling the space to Amazon.
Github obviously isn't making explicit claims like this but they benefit whenever people with purchasing power implicitly understand that github is the only option.
Do you have a source for your claims about the ARDC?
That assumption has come up in almost every conversation I’ve ever had with semi-technical people regarding git, so the confusion is just a fact. It happens so often, I think Linus (or whoever controlled the git trademarks at the time) should have demanded GitHub change their name when it was launched.
One of my younger colleagues indeed displayed a mistaken impression of that kind last week.
More precisely, a movement to leave GitHub mistakenly endeavors to leave git.
I was expecting the use of non-SSH git remotes without network access. Any mounted file system can be a valid remote such as a USB drive. I use file-based remote to keep some repos encrypted on S3 using Rclone.
For example, `git remote -v` would show: `secure-s3 /mnt/fuse/rclone/secure-s3/git/$REPO.git`
I think concurrency is a problem with file-based remotes but for one person keeping a desktop and laptop in sync it is much simpler than running a VPS.
I use Keybase's encrypted git repo the same way (to sync "private" dotfiles across laptops / remote workstations)
You can also have multiple independent git repos that don't duplicate the full object store, via git clone --reference. It's less relevant in the container era, but otherwise it can save a lot of time and disk space when cloning repos repeatedly
What's the purpose of this? I don't get it. Why push at all to "local remote", if you can just keep your changes on a local branch, and push it whenever "remote remote" becomes available again?
I use this to push changes to a local encrypted sparse bundle image, and then I periodically rsync that image to a remote disk. Git has no built in encrypted storage, so pushing directly to a remote means you trust that remote.
I've used it to quickly start a git project, with source control, no credentials to deal with, etc
eventually I can set up a proper git repo, set up credentials, etc.
I think it's like how some people use 127.0.0.1 for stuff, then later expand the software engineering process to do it right.
I don’t understand. A proper git repo is… your git repo. Git is distributed.
I have lots of projects under for version control with no remotes.
I reckon most folks have made a git oopsie and needed to re-clone a repo at least once in their career.
Having a “local remote” would be an awfully quick way to do that, especially in situations with no/low network connection or a flakey upstream server.
> I reckon most folks have made a git oopsie and needed to re-clone a repo at least once in their career.
And I recon this is the default workflow for most people most of the time.
A decade ago I was working with an intern who wasn’t allowed access to push to any branch. As I wanted him to get experience with the development cycle, I set up a bare repo in a shared Dropbox folder and had him push code there.
Aside from that unique use case, I might consider this for storing code on a network attached drive (archival).
I am also seriously puzzled and don't see the point. Why push to a local remote if the real remote is not reachable? The branch is still not leaving your machine, you are just making a copy of it in another place and now have to manage `local/` refs in addition to `origin/`.
"local" can also be a network fileshare. It could also be in a directory that is treated differently than your other checkouts - whether that's something like deployment, sharing over the web, running CI, etc.
Within certain bounds git behaves quite nicely with a directory of bare git repos and Syncthing.
I use this to work with multiple agents in multiple sandboxes - they push to the local remote instead of GitHub which is now unreliable.
And I push to GitHub/GitLab from a repo outside the sandboxes.
That's what I used to do with git (just recently moved off of SVN) in a shared computer predating github. It works very well!
you can also setup a local remote which hardlinks the index so it doesn't occupy more space. Why? Idk. You don't want to share stash, rerere-cache, branches whatever.
Also handy if you're running an agent in a container on the local fs. Set up a local clone, contain the agent to that repo folder and have it hack away on that. Later, you step out of the container and do the syncing. You can't use worktrees in this situations.
Bare repos are also pretty cool. You can clone the git mailing list as a bare repo and search for threads there instead of setting up an mbox (same for the kernel obviously)
At that point you might as well use a worktree[1].
[1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree
which harness has actual containment controls and not just suggestions?
It’s hard to sincerely bring up things like site-to-site VPN, without condescending.
A "local remote" is a contradiction. Unless the remote is on a different disk you are just wasting space. Even then the point of remotes is for sharing, not for backup/redundancy.
What if you have a few local machines you’re using for development, and want to keep them in sync? This method allows that single central repo without having to bounce all the code through a cloud hosting service.
OK, different meanings of word "local". TFA uses "local" to mean the same machine, not the same local network.
The remote can be a shared directory that multiple users have access to, and the working directory is private where each user only has private read + write access.