3 ms·

> I disagree that the dominance of git is a problem. ok but that's not the argument of the article, so you aren't disagreeing with TFA. Maybe you're disagreein

• lolinder 4y ago
  And there's an entire section that argues that git becoming entrenched as the standard is part of the problem with GitHub. That's what I was replying to. > git itself, while not owned by GitHub, is even more popular. This is largely because of GitHub’s popularity and in spite of git’s poor UX. It would be nice to move beyond git one day and have a better experience for managing complex codebases, and not on GitHub’s timeline. > ... > I want to underscore this because I think it’s important: git and GitHub’s symbiosis are holding us back as an industry. > ... > Other version control software exists that doesn’t need a separate company to make the code accessible from the web or makes dealing with conflicts easier. We as an industry cannot benefit from these alternatives if we continue to use GitHub this heavily.
  • jiveturkey 4y ago
    thanks. i somehow glossed over those bits. i guess because i agree that the dominance of github is a disaster, so i was focused on the parts of TFA that i agree with. like you, and i guess contrary to the article (again, like you), i think git itself as lingua franca is fine and maybe even great. certainly it has warts, some of them substantial, but what doesn't. we've come a long way since CVS and (shudder) SCCS.