5 ms·

No, before git the standard was svn, and before that, cvs. The switches happened even though there was an existing standard.

• progre 9y ago
  Having worked with all three, nothing but Stockholm syndrome would keep anyone to switch from cvs. Likevise the switch to git for open source happend (In my opinion) in large part because Github offers a far better experience than SourceForge witch was dominant at the time.
  • boulos 9y ago
    There was actually a brief period where Google Code was ascendant, but then GitHub was demonstrably investing more in collaboration. I think one aspect of Git that is really important is forking, and having your own local commits. Merging commits and patches in svn were awful. You wouldn't ever allow someone random to join your svn repo, but if they can reasonably provide a patch, you could take it. Git makes that massively easier.
    • TheArcane 9y ago
      >There was actually a brief period where Google Code was ascendant, brrrr
    • alphaalpha101 9y ago
      >I think one aspect of Git that is really important is forking, and having your own local commits. Do you mean branching? Git doesn't have any concept of forking. What GitHub calls 'forking' isn't forking at all.