3 ms·
Hmm, really? It's hard to measure objectively... but my perception was always that there was an explosion of SCMs around the early-mid 2000s, after everybody g
by tacostakohashi 10y ago
Hmm, really?
It's hard to measure objectively... but my perception was always that there was an explosion of SCMs around the early-mid 2000s, after everybody got sick of CVS, but eventually Git won out and a lot of the alternatives / diversity in the space went away.
Within short succession, there was Subversion, Arch, Darcs, Quilt, Bazaar, Mercurial. On the commercial side, perforce had a certain amount of traction, and the Linux kernel was using BitKeeper... which no doubt encouraged a lot of the innovation in the open-source space.
Then, once Git was developed, got huge exposure and traction through the Kernel, and GitHub came onto the scene, it quickly became dominant - despite the alternatives, and despite the goofy interface.
- gkya 10y agoI firmly believe that GitHub has at least 40% role in git's success. Another 40% is Linus, and the remaining 20% is git's technical merits.
- tacostakohashi 10y agoSounds about right to me... but it's hard to decouple things so neatly. It wouldn't really be possible to create an SVNHub that worked as well as github.
- gkya 10y agowrt SVNHub, well, probably you're right. But on the technical level any <insert your DVCS>Hub would be at least nearly as good as GitHub. And git didn't invent DVCS.
- sqrt17 10y agoBefore everyone got onto GitHub, there was SourceForge and GoogleCode. Both worked well for a lot of people for quite some while. Also, if you really want to, you can use the SVN interface of GitHub and never go through git. You could, in its time, also use Google code with git repositories but without the pileup if nice little things that make GitHub more than just a git hosting service
- oblio 10y agoSVN is still quite popular. I'd definitely not bundle it with Arch, Darcs, Quilt or Bazaar, in that regard ;)