3 ms·

Well they have changed Git, but it has been in a mostly open and upstream way, though they have used their market dominance for force changes inside of the Git

by syshum 6y ago

Well they have changed Git, but it has been in a mostly open and upstream way, though they have used their market dominance for force changes inside of the Git project "google style" where by they tell upstream what they are doing and if upstream wants to continue to be "Github compatible" well upstream better adopt it as well.... Also the idea that mono-culture is less of a threat because git is a DVCS ignores all of the data in issues, wiki, network effect, and all of the other non-git things that make up github, none of these are distributed or really portable and for many projects this makes them decidedly not a "mirror service with discoverability"

whymarrh 6y ago
> where by they tell upstream what they are doing and if upstream wants to continue to be "Github compatible" well upstream better adopt it as well.... Do you have an example of this? This seems like it would be a hard sell as there haven't been many (any?) breaking changes to Git itself in a long while.
- syshum 6y ago
  Most recent would be the master / main controversy And while not git proper, you could point to Git-LFS as this example as well.
nerdponx 6y ago
Well they have changed Git, but it has been in a mostly open and upstream way, though they have used their market dominance for force changes inside of the Git project I haven't heard of this, got an example?