4 ms·
To be fair, the guys who rejected Sharepoint and Sourcesafe (for being shit) to have secret "illegal" Github Enterprise accounts (not managed by Microsoft Corp,
by DiabloD3 3y ago
To be fair, the guys who rejected Sharepoint and Sourcesafe (for being shit) to have secret "illegal" Github Enterprise accounts (not managed by Microsoft Corp, but internally by the team) who later became upper management and executives are the ones that bought Github.
Microsoft culturally changed, hard; in some ways good, in some ways bad.
Fun fact, they had an internal proposal to buy Github when it was much smaller: rejected by the old guard; then a proposal to clone Github using git instead of Sourcesafe, also rejected.
In the end, they bought Github at a muuuuuch more expensive price, and it was still worth it given how half the company was secretly using Github Enterprise and then checking in their "final" work into the big monorepo.
Now the monorepo is git, and Microsoft first-party supports git on Windows using their on-top-of-NTFS-because-NTFS-sucks layer.
- easton 3y ago> proposal to clone Github using git instead of Sourcesafe Maybe you're talking about something different, but this happened, didn't it? ADO supports Git alongside TFS (not Sourcesafe, but Sourcesafe has been dead forever and was pretty much dead when GitHub first started). It's very much store-brand GitHub repos, much of it is the same but there's tons of features missing and the code review tools aren't as good. As far as I know (per publicly released blogs/docs/talks), the Windows monorepo lives inside ADO, not GitHub.
- DiabloD3 3y agoAFAIK, ADO came about because of the "clone GH" proposal having died, but somebody wanting to revive it. Microsoft is a big company, there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of recycled ideas. Also, AFAIK, the Microsoft monorepo in git did not originally live in ADO. I'm not sure if it does now, either, although it'd make sense for it to as the ADO dogfooder.