I think you are getting confused about what is decentralized by git (et al). It's not that there's a notion of "a canoncial copy". The canonical copy stuff is about user/developer organization. What dvcs distributes is the history - the notion that you can have local commits, branches, etc is a decentralization of a repo's history. In a centralized vcs, that history is always mediated by the server - you want a new revision number, you have to ask the server what it is.

The fact that you keep coming back to github to "prove" it's somehow centralized at the vcs level is clearly you just doing some contrarian trolling.

> In a centralized vcs, that history is always mediated by the server - you want a new revision number, you have to ask the server what it is.

I assume the most trivial case when say I contribute to e.g. MS documentation, which source is now available exclusively on GitHub. Can I say that this MS docs repository is a canonical copy?

I think that the most common daily use workflows with git and GitHub are absolutely centralised regardless of the decentralised nature of git.

* I have a local git repository, its local version history and all the great features this provides. But I have to push to GitHub, you know. Can I somehow publish my changes if GitHub is down? So how is this different from centralised version control?

* GitHib provides extra features besides version control. It has a bug tracker, wiki, whatever. I'm tied to all these features, and they are not decentralised at all. I understand that this analogy is silly, but GitHub is a well done SourceForge with Git. But it's still SourceForge, and it's centralised.

When I use git with GitHub, I usually only clone, commit and push and check my project's issue tracker. All these actions except commit require access to GitHub. So I think that the workflow is absolutely centralised even if git is decentralised by design and has local version history.

I think that's what @evouga meant in his comment above when he said > But almost nobody actually uses git the way it was originally intended, eg. as decentralized version control? Instead there’s a canonical master repository (on GitHub) everyone pulls from/pushes to.

There is (was?) an effort to do this, called SVK. [1] I've used it before Git. While it wasn't good as Git, it actually worked pretty decently for staging changes in local prior to push.

[1]: https://metacpan.org/dist/SVK/view/bin/svk