nasretdinov29 minutes ago
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
ucirello8 minutes ago
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!
antiframean hour ago
GitHub has been such a staple of the modern dev that some are now (re)discovering git is distributed.
alsobrsp43 minutes ago
Everything old is new again. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people that thought GitHub invented git.
orev29 minutes ago
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.
enoint41 minutes ago
More precisely, a movement to leave GitHub mistakenly endeavors to leave git.
mystifyingpoi39 minutes ago
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?
pokstad29 minutes ago
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.
ulrikrasmussen27 minutes ago
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/`.
adregan23 minutes ago
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).
[deleted]20 minutes agocollapsed
[deleted]19 minutes agocollapsed
cerved34 minutes ago
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)
fphilipe32 minutes ago
At that point you might as well use a worktree[1].
cyanydeez29 minutes ago
which harness has actual containment controls and not just suggestions?
enoint28 minutes ago
It’s hard to sincerely bring up things like site-to-site VPN, without condescending.
globular-toast38 minutes ago
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.
Zambyte34 minutes ago
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.
orev33 minutes ago
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.