3 ms·
GitHub’s success was in part due to it making Git interface’s bareable. Imagine an UX so bad it generates a whole industry.
by otikik 4y ago
GitHub’s success was in part due to it making Git interface’s bareable. Imagine an UX so bad it generates a whole industry.
- peteradio 4y agoLol wut. Github's success is in being a remote code repository.
- nulltype 4y agoSo your claim is that GitHub would be equally successful if their website was just information about how to push to a git remote hosted by them?
- UncleEntity 4y agoSourceForge was pretty successful back in the day and they were pretty bland compared to GitHub.
- xyzzy_plugh 4y agoGitHub's UX is so incredibly terrible. Pull Requests are horrible -- even mailing lists are better and that's impressive. GitHub's UX is so bad it has indeed generated a whole industry of out-of-band review tools.
- djur 4y agoI don't think this is true. GitHub (the website) became very successful with virtually no feature overlap with the git CLI. I suppose you could say that GitHub pull requests and forks are a replacement for git's built-in email-based workflow, but that's not really what people complain about when they say git is hard to use (and it's not like the other DVCSes had obviously better solutions).