3 ms·
Maybe i’m crazy but i find it completely unremarkable that a GitHub strategy session leaves core git completely alone and instead focuses on improving the ecosy
by jcims 7y ago
Maybe i’m crazy but i find it completely unremarkable that a GitHub strategy session leaves core git completely alone and instead focuses on improving the ecosystem around it.
- danpalmer 7y agoThis doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Looking at GitHub product changes over the last few years (or even GitLab product changes), the core git components have been largely untouched. In fact I'd argue that the core git part of GitHub hasn't really changed since ~2-3 years into the company. This makes sense, because GitHub doesn't add value in "improving" the git part. Anyone can run a git server, and git itself doesn't really have much else to it. GitHub adds value in all the places around it. Collaboration, process, teams, communication, code review, security. These are things that most people using git will need, which are better when integrated or close to their version control system, and things that git doesn't address. As a GitHub user, I'm glad that this was what they focused on.
- WAHa_06x36 7y agoI'd be less generous and say outright that GitHub benefits from git being a bad tool that NEEDS an external ecosystem to make it usable. Improving git itself goes directly against their interests.
- saagarjha 7y agoMany of the things that GitHub adds are not things I see being part of Git.