4 ms·

> unjustified tech hype wave git won for good reasons, it's clearly better than what came before it. It may be popular to shit on it now (similarly for jquery

> unjustified tech hype wave git won for good reasons, it's clearly better than what came before it. It may be popular to shit on it now (similarly for jquery), but when it arrived on the scene it was clearly an improvement.

gilcot 3y ago
It won because it was used by Linux kernel first and second because gave it an interface to ease things. https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/01/09/beyond-git-the-other-version-control-systems-developers-use/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/01/09/beyond-git-the-other-v...
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Plus the gorilla that is GitHub. Which was significantly better than the contemporary alternatives of SourceForge, BitBucket, or Google Code. In a parallel universe, had there been a HgHub (with same strong initial iteration as GitHub), I have no doubt that mercurial would have won.
- ynik 3y ago
  The way I got into git was: I was working on a project using Subversion and wanted to be able to work on train rides (and internet connectivity on trains wasn't a thing back in 2007). Initially I tried SVK, but I found that git-svn actually worked better. In fact, it worked so well, I stopped using "svn merge" (which took 5+ minutes on our repository for every merge), and started using "git merge" with git-svn instead (which reduced the merge time to <3s, and even the extra git<->svn sync overhead cost only 30s or so). As a bonus, git also reported fewer "merge conflicts" (svn at the time had issues repeatedly merging from a branch to trunk). So when I ended up picking a DVCS for another project, git was the natural choice since I already knew it. I imagine there are a lot of developers who started out on SVN and took a similar route to learning git, so having a high-quality Subversion bridge turned out to be one of the critical features on the road to adoption. This advantage in adoption then snowballed via forges like GitHub.
- gilcot 3y ago
  (there was a name missing:) and second because Github gave it an interface
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  This talk by Linus is iconic, if you haven't watched it you should. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 He talks about what SVN got wrong, specifically, that it made branching easy and it's the merging that's the important piece. Git won because it made merging easy.
mangodrunk 3y ago
I don’t think that git is better than its predecessors. Why do you think it’s better?
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Because I've been in this industry long enough to have used the tech that came before.
Tomis02 3y ago
> git won for good reasons, it's clearly better than what came before it. You guys keep covering your eyes and ears, pretending that Git and SVN were the only players on the VCS market. That was not the case. Sure, SVN had problems and people wanted something better, but Git was far from the being the best alternative for the average software development team. > It may be popular to shit on it now I was shitting on it 10 years ago, along with a small minority, and for good reason. Unfortunately, the hype was too strong, and we are where we are.

gilcot 3y ago

It won because it was used by Linux kernel first and second because gave it an interface to ease things. https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/01/09/beyond-git-the-other-version-control-systems-developers-use/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/01/09/beyond-git-the-other-v...

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Plus the gorilla that is GitHub. Which was significantly better than the contemporary alternatives of SourceForge, BitBucket, or Google Code. In a parallel universe, had there been a HgHub (with same strong initial iteration as GitHub), I have no doubt that mercurial would have won.
ynik 3y ago
The way I got into git was: I was working on a project using Subversion and wanted to be able to work on train rides (and internet connectivity on trains wasn't a thing back in 2007). Initially I tried SVK, but I found that git-svn actually worked better. In fact, it worked so well, I stopped using "svn merge" (which took 5+ minutes on our repository for every merge), and started using "git merge" with git-svn instead (which reduced the merge time to <3s, and even the extra git<->svn sync overhead cost only 30s or so). As a bonus, git also reported fewer "merge conflicts" (svn at the time had issues repeatedly merging from a branch to trunk). So when I ended up picking a DVCS for another project, git was the natural choice since I already knew it. I imagine there are a lot of developers who started out on SVN and took a similar route to learning git, so having a high-quality Subversion bridge turned out to be one of the critical features on the road to adoption. This advantage in adoption then snowballed via forges like GitHub.
gilcot 3y ago
(there was a name missing:) and second because Github gave it an interface
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
This talk by Linus is iconic, if you haven't watched it you should. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 He talks about what SVN got wrong, specifically, that it made branching easy and it's the merging that's the important piece. Git won because it made merging easy.

mangodrunk 3y ago

I don’t think that git is better than its predecessors. Why do you think it’s better?

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
Because I've been in this industry long enough to have used the tech that came before.

Tomis02 3y ago

> git won for good reasons, it's clearly better than what came before it. You guys keep covering your eyes and ears, pretending that Git and SVN were the only players on the VCS market. That was not the case. Sure, SVN had problems and people wanted something better, but Git was far from the being the best alternative for the average software development team. > It may be popular to shit on it now I was shitting on it 10 years ago, along with a small minority, and for good reason. Unfortunately, the hype was too strong, and we are where we are.