3 ms·

> stating that Git was "the first system that was deliberately built around" branching is too arrogant. Do you have a counter-example?

• anton_gogolev 13y ago
  For one, Mercurial has branching as well. Although technically it was released 12 days later than Git, the motivation for both of them was that Linus Torvalds decided (for legal reasons) not to use BitKeeper for Linux kernel development and was in need for a replacement version control system. Besides Git, Mercurial and BitKeeper, there is also Monotone, which is also a DVCS.
  • stock_toaster 13y ago
    and Darcs. Which is more "patch based". Never used it much, but it has been around for quite a while (march 2003). arch/tla/ArX was also an early one (2001? 2003?). I recall it was distributed and had branching.
• EGreg 13y ago
  Bitkeeper?
• tbrownaw 13y ago
  Git was built to replace a proprietary branch-centric (or merge-centric) versioning system that the kernel devs had used previously, because none of the other available systems were suitable (including several DVCSs, which must be branch/merge centric due to the nature of distributedness). Also try looking into the history of the DaggyFixes idea (that a bug fix should be committed against the earliest revision to contain the bug and then merge into the active branches, rather than committed against current head).