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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I recon this is the default workflow for most people most of the time.
Aside from that unique use case, I might consider this for storing code on a network attached drive (archival).
And I push to GitHub/GitLab from a repo outside the sandboxes.
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)
[1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree