2 ms·
And git won because hands down it was the fastest and most flexible, albeit most horrible UX. Also unlike something like say bzr, the core on disk git format ha
by SEJeff 10y ago
And git won because hands down it was the fastest and most flexible, albeit most horrible UX. Also unlike something like say bzr, the core on disk git format has stayed relatively unchanged since it was first written. The architecture is simply the best in git compared to most other vcs software.
- cesarb 10y agoActually, there was one big disk format change early in git history: the object id changed from the SHA1 of the compressed object to the SHA1 of the uncompressed object. All three projects using git back then (Linux, sparse, and git itself) had to convert to the new format (since the object ids changed, every tree and commit object had to be rewritten).
- SEJeff 10y agoSure, and I said relatively unchanged compared to bzr. Looking up in bzr, the ondisk format changed several times in incompatible ways.
- gioele 10y ago> Sure, and I said relatively unchanged compared to bzr. Looking up in bzr, the ondisk format changed several times in incompatible ways. But bzr always had the ability to read and write repositories written using older formats. Each on-disk repository format is implemented as a set of separate Python classes, all exposing the same interface. Git thought it could do without a "repository format version identifier" and a strategy for multiple on-disk formats until version 2.7 (2015). Bzr had everything well planned out since the beginning.