How do the decentralized behaviour of Distributed Revision Control Systems Work?

I'm partial to Git, but I believe the theory applies to most other systems Decentralized VCS is designed to handle branching and merging as part of its DNA by keeping a pointer to the previous commit in every commit, so any change can be traced back to a common ancestor Revision "numbers" as such aren't used to refer to commits. Obviously, there would be more than one sequence if that were the case... In the case of Git, the pointer "key" which uniquely identifies any commit is an SHA1 hash. The only thing that makes the whole arrangement sequential is the graph of pointers referencing each commit's parent In practice, a developer commits their work to their own local copy, and when it's time to share it with others, they do so in three ways: Ask the other developer to pull the changes directly from them Push directly into the other developer's copy Push the changes to a central location that others can pull from These are really the same thing in the end because it just comes down to merging the diffs.In the third scenario the central location merely acts as a proxy--the same thing can be achieved without it The system can be as centralized or decentralized as you choose to make it.

Most projects have some amount of centralization for practical reasons, but at any point a fork can become the new central repository, or developers can choose to trade code between themselves ad-hoc When commits are fetched and merged into your own copy, these are applied on top of whatever common ancestor you share with the upstream repository. If there is a conflict, the merge process pauses at the commit step where the conflict occurred, and asks you to resolve it before continuing to apply the remaining commits on top of it.(Standard unified diff markers are used to mark the conflicts.) Most merges happen automatically, but when there's a conflict it's often quite trivial to resolve. The nice thing is that you don't end up with a ball of conflicts spanning several commits: it's much easier to resolve because it pauses in the middle of the history and lets you deal with it in smaller, logical chunks.

I'm partial to Git, but I believe the theory applies to most other systems... Decentralized VCS is designed to handle branching and merging as part of its DNA by keeping a pointer to the previous commit in every commit, so any change can be traced back to a common ancestor. Revision "numbers" as such aren't used to refer to commits. Obviously, there would be more than one sequence if that were the case... In the case of Git, the pointer "key" which uniquely identifies any commit is an SHA1 hash.

The only thing that makes the whole arrangement sequential is the graph of pointers referencing each commit's parent. In practice, a developer commits their work to their own local copy, and when it's time to share it with others, they do so in three ways: Ask the other developer to pull the changes directly from them Push directly into the other developer's copy Push the changes to a central location that others can pull from These are really the same thing in the end because it just comes down to merging the diffs. In the third scenario the central location merely acts as a proxy--the same thing can be achieved without it.

The system can be as centralized or decentralized as you choose to make it. Most projects have some amount of centralization for practical reasons, but at any point a fork can become the new central repository, or developers can choose to trade code between themselves ad-hoc. When commits are fetched and merged into your own copy, these are applied on top of whatever common ancestor you share with the upstream repository.

If there is a conflict, the merge process pauses at the commit step where the conflict occurred, and asks you to resolve it before continuing to apply the remaining commits on top of it. (Standard unified diff markers are used to mark the conflicts. ) Most merges happen automatically, but when there's a conflict it's often quite trivial to resolve.

The nice thing is that you don't end up with a ball of conflicts spanning several commits: it's much easier to resolve because it pauses in the middle of the history and lets you deal with it in smaller, logical chunks.

– Shoan Aug 4 '10 at 14:58 Corrected, thanks. – Andrew Vit Aug 12 '10 at 21:13.

Scott Chacon's presentation from RailsConf last year was terrific. One of the best planned out and informational talks that I have ever seen. I'll defer to him (specifically, for your question, the remote workflow part starts around 18 minutes into it): RailsConf Git Talk.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.