4 ms·
He was "scratching his own itch" (see http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s02.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/
by thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
He was "scratching his own itch" (see http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s02.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-baza...).
Git was written to meet the version control requirements of the Linux kernel. It works well for that project's needs which are an outlier for most development needs unless you are working at FAANG scale.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoGit is a perfect match our project's needs, which are so far from FAANG scale that it would be a joke to even compare them. In our case, fully distributed development (no developers live or work within 1000 miles of each other), public repository, welcoming 3rd party PRs, strong use of topic branches, fully rebase-not-merge workflow. 600k lines of C++, 21 year history, on the order of 100 contributors, 2-3 core developers at any point in time.
- pjmlp 5y agoThere were other solutions, much less complex to deal with than git, but hey, they lacked the luxury of being an hard requirement to deal with Linux kernel and related eco-system.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoI've used, over the years, RCS, SCCS, CVS, SVN, Bitkeeper and Perforce. I would not trade any of them for git at this point in time, primarily due to the way that git allows for both net-connected and disconnected development without any change in the workflow.
- pjmlp 5y agoI see you left mercurial out of the list.
- pjmlp 5y ago99% of developers that have to deal with git complexity aren't working at FAANG scale.
- samatman 5y agoKind of ironic to say "FAANG scale" here, since Google notoriously uses an enormous monorepo, and Facebook uses mercurial and has done considerable work to scale it.