3 ms·
> Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab. Your points are made in a needlessly provocative manner. Tons of people roll their own interfaces
by koko775 11y ago
> Almost nobody uses just git -- they use github or gitlab.
Your points are made in a needlessly provocative manner.
Tons of people roll their own interfaces to their source control, and a lot of people benefit from somewhat centralized repositories. Not only is there room for both, but I don't see any data indicating how prevalent private, non-GitHub repositories are, or how those would even be counted accurately given the distributed model
Almost nobody? Very few people use Mercurial? Nowhere good? Hell-bent on killing? Few people use it? very sad self-fulfilling prophesy? Jeez, there's opinionated, then there's recklessly authoritative. Mercurial isn't as popular as git, but neither are dependent on GitHub/bitbucket for continued relevance.
To address your point more directly, I personally think that merging the concepts of versioned data and developer tasks makes for less flexibility; I prefer simple, pluggable, and modular to integrated when it comes to version control.
- w_t_payne 11y agoThe approach that I am taking is (at the moment) highly integrated -- and that is the thing that I am most concerned about -- I'd rather like to find a way to turn it into a set of disparate tools that use common (open) interfaces to work together -- But I haven't found a way to navigate towards that just yet.
- jordigh 11y ago> Tons of people roll their own interfaces to their source control, And how do they compare with github's megatons? I argue the numbers are not comparable. My most generous estimate is that less than 5% of all git users work without ever touching Github. > Mercurial isn't as popular as git, but neither are dependent on GitHub/bitbucket for continued relevance. I am convinced that if anything ever replaces git, it will have to come with a website that greatly simplifies deploying software. Git alone is not enough for sharing with the masses -- it requires Github or equivalent. I am also certain that git's meteoric rise would have been completely impossible without Github. Every time I see a newcomer trying to deploy a Mercurial repo, I see them struggling with Bitbucket's implementation of hg hosting. It pains me that there is nothing better to direct them to.
- detaro 11y agoI'd say "users that never use Github, for anything" isn't a very useful measure. Yes, that number is very low, but I bet most of GitHub's users also have repos that do not exist on Github, or are only sent to GitHub as a mirror (because GitHub is where people search for code).
- jordigh 11y agoI'd say "users that never use Github, for anything" isn't a very useful measure. It is important because Github has become the yardstick by which everything else is measured. People expect git to work roughly like Github. The whole pull request workflow was popularised by Github. Linux and git do not use pull requests. The deprecation of the git:// uri scheme is also Github. The expectation of an integrated bug tracker, comment threads, and wiki is also Github.