3 ms·
> 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
by 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.