2 ms·
> Put plainly, we do not believe that Git is the future of source control. Git has served developers well for many years, but it was designed around the constra
by sublinear 23d ago
> Put plainly, we do not believe that Git is the future of source control. Git has served developers well for many years, but it was designed around the constraints of 2005, not 2025, let alone 2035. For example, it was built for the Linux kernel: an open source project. Open Source is incredibly important to our industry, but this means it’s missing key features that are useful for organizations that aren’t sharing their code with everyone.
This is supposed to be the most critical part of the blog post and it's really anemic. It never explains what's wrong with git.
- coffeebeqn 23d agoBut it’s from 2005! And and it’s used for Linux. Ergo,
- sam_lowry_ 23d agoThere's money to be made trying to replace git but not succeeding )
- holowoodman 23d agoYeah, but are investors really so stupid not to notice that even the problem statement doesn't actually hold any water?
- OhNoNotAgain_99 23d ago[dead]
- Almondsetat 23d agoProbably something about integrating access control to a repository so a deparment has the source for a certain library, while the others only see the header files and compiled objects to use?
- HeckFeck 23d ago>it’s missing key features that are useful for organizations that aren’t sharing their code with everyone. I agree. Let's go back to subversion.
- steveklabnik 22d agoTrying to keep it high level here. Explaining this is important, but it's just an entirely different kind of post. That post would be deep in the weeds, and this one is at a high level. Both matter, for sure. And we'll put out more technical posts as time goes on. But since we don't really have much on our blog just yet, we're starting with more abstractt stuff.