3 ms·
No, git essentially won. GitHub is the single most common site for OSS projects, but there are many others, and they generally use git as well. GitLab obviousl
by dwheeler 6y ago
No, git essentially won.
GitHub is the single most common site for OSS projects, but there are many others, and they generally use git as well. GitLab obviously supports git. SourceForge supports git. Savannah supports git. Bitbucket supports git. Microsoft internally uses git, and that happened before they bought GitHub: https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/24/microsoft-now-uses-git-and-gvfs-to-develop-windows/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/24/microsoft-now-uses-git-and...
There are other version control systems, but git is by far and away the majority player.
- bsder 6y agoMethinks you need a history lesson. Bitbucket was originally Mercurial-only. Savannah was SVN-only forever. SourceForge (geez--people still mention them after they turned into a dumpster fire of malware?) was CVS then SVN and only much later Git (long after SourceForge was relevant anymore). I presume GitLab was Git from the start. > Microsoft internally uses git Long after there was any relevance to the choice.
- dwheeler 6y agoMethinks not. I was around for all that history, and that is exactly my point. Savannah, bitbucket, and SourceForge all added support for git later because they had to. They added support for git because git won, not because it failed. Also, please look at the article I cited about Microsoft. That was not just a simple swap. Microsoft could not use git as-is because of the way they use Version Control in general. Instead of sticking to their existing system, they implemented additional functionality for git so that git would work in their environment. That is a vote of confidence for git, because they believed it was better to add functionality to git.