Do note that, with multiple users that have write access and push at the same time, this can result in race conditions and corrupted repositories. So only use this for a personal repository, or when the others only have read access.

Not only that, but you could have multiple users to begin with. Since all files are synced on save, two people couldn't be working at the same time. Well, I guess they could, but good luck editing the same file. Or even trying to commit. You could easily overwrite the other persons files without knowing it.

Agreed. It's not running Git as a server, just putting the repository somewhere public.

Article could be summarized to one sentence "Put your git repo in your Dropbox". It does also go on to suggest that you share this folder with other Dropbox users but that's a bad idea. Even single users can end up with problems if they use multiple machines, git doesn't understand Dropbox's method of dealing with conflicts.

Yeah, I think people may be overthinking this, although there's something to be said for "two great tastes that taste great together". It's kind of silly, but I actually wrote a "git dropbox" command to just stuff a bare repo of what I'm doing in my Dropbox so I don't have to think about it... and I kind of like it. Maybe it's overkill, but if I only have to type one command, it's easy enough I won't think about it :-) (https://github.com/agnoster/git-dropbox/ for what it's worth)

Agreed it's a dangerous idea for collaboration, unless you are the only one pushing to it and everyone else just pulls. That could work as a simple way to make your git repo pull-accessible to others without using a separate service or server (assuming you both have Dropbox already, of course).

This seems like a terrible idea. Not sure why it's getting so much attention, is it just because Dropbox is mentioned?

https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitHosting is where I would say people should start if they want to host a .git.

I completely agree. This is a perfect example of 'just because you can do it doesn't mean you should'.

I think calling it a 'git server' is a bit much. Its only feature is to sync the repo between different computers. As wladimir pointed out, it's not even reliable when you have multiple committers.

How is this different from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2229756 (still on the frontpage) ?

its not...

It does work for a central 'master' repository that people push/pull rarely when new versions are done but otherwise it's only good for a single user.

hmmm.... I've used that together with a friend for quite some time now and we never had problems. I assume we were just lucky. Thank you people, for clearing that up.

And yes, of course you're right, it's not really a server.

I've been doing this for a while now. I didn't even think anything of it.

Next post: How to use Gitosis as a git server