>If you talk about any sort of workflow other than what github provides you can just see their brain switch off. I'm sorry, what dev conferences are you going

>If you talk about any sort of workflow other than what github provides you can just see their brain switch off. I'm sorry, what dev conferences are you going to? You're kind of just claiming that these same people are too stupid to understand what git allows you to do out of the box so they wouldn't mind BitKeeper's (or any other SCM like it) problems and limitations as long as GitHub hosted it for them with a nice logo (which again, isn't true because other hosted SCM's solutions lost as well). That's just incredibly tone deaf and doesn't make sense from a historical timeline perspective. This is just straight up denial at this point. >well the people that are still butthurt over the licensing would whine but it's apache v2 now, that should be good enough It's not just a licensing issue and you know it. You are being dishonest with everyone here and yourself. There is a historical record in the lkml archives that you're choosing to ignore.