> That's now known as "I can't deploy because github is down". Note that the author proposes "local commits plus a centralized storage".
And in that cause you can scp your repo somewhere and change your origin and move on.
Also, do people really rely on 3rd party services for their deployed code? I've used github as a repo and colab tool at companies, but we still deployed from repos owned by the company.
> I'd even go out and argue that most use-cases are solved just as good by a solid centralized system with less complexity involved.
I'd go out an argue that because the added complexity of git is far outweighed by the benefits of a local repo.
And in that cause you can scp your repo somewhere and change your origin and move on.
Also, do people really rely on 3rd party services for their deployed code? I've used github as a repo and colab tool at companies, but we still deployed from repos owned by the company.
> I'd even go out and argue that most use-cases are solved just as good by a solid centralized system with less complexity involved.
I'd go out an argue that because the added complexity of git is far outweighed by the benefits of a local repo.