4 ms·

All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel. Git won due mainly to Linus personnality and the r

All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel. Git won due mainly to Linus personnality and the rise of "social coding" via github. Bazaar failed because, at the beginning, it was painfully slow compare to git and mercurial. It speed has increase over time, but bad reputation is hard to get rid of.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel. Bet bitkeeper regretted that decision...
- twoodfin 13y ago
  If I recall, the zeitgeist then was that bitkeeper was a necessary evil. My guess is that git would have come into being eventually in any circumstances short of bitkeeper becoming free software, and maybe even then. Distributed change management is such a critical component of the kernel development process (especially for Linus and the other maintainers) that relying on someone else's software seems suboptimal.
  - frenchy 13y ago
    The reason Bitkeeper dropped the kernel was that certain kernel devs had started writing free software to interact with the kernel repository (they wanted to be able to perform certain tasks that bitkeeper couldn't). Had this continued, we would probably have ended up seeing a free version of Bitkeeper.
- justincormack 13y ago
  They don't seem to have updated their website since http://www.bitkeeper.com/ http://www.bitkeeper.com/
jwr 13y ago
I'd say git is popular not just because of Linus, but also because it is oriented towards "just getting stuff done", rather than towards theoretical concepts. You can rewrite history, fix your mistakes, and generally do whatever you want. When merging, git isn't picky, either: if the code looks the same, it is the same. In-place branching is hugely useful, just switch your tree in an instant (your editor should update the contents of your files automatically). So is the stash. Overall, it's just a useful tool that doesn't try to teach you "how things should theoretically be done", and never says "well in order to get X, you should have done this a long time ago".
- unethical_ban 13y ago
  Except bzr is conceptually easier to learn and has a more consistent command syntax than git.
  - andrewem 13y ago
    What are some of the conceptual differences that make bzr easier to learn? (I agree that git's command syntax is inconsistent.)
    - gizmogwai 13y ago
      Command names are closer to SVN/CVS ones, which lower the learning curve for similar concepts. The documentation really is at another level of didactic compare to git, and no, pro-git is not enough neither. Changes are tracked automatically, no need to explicitly add the files you changed to a particular commit (Whether or not it is a good idea is another discussion). Empty directories can be versioned, no need to create a .gitignore in it to fool the system (Same remark as above).
    - unethical_ban 13y ago
      The syntax is part of it being easier. Also, though it's been a while since I tried using any official git documentation, bzr's website had handy tutorials, references, and cheatsheets available. Great layout, assumed no VCS experience.
riquito 13y ago
Git was by far the fastest, this was a big factor when evaluating the move from svn (or similar) to a new system.
- jordigh 13y ago
  Not at all, early git was way slower than early hg. For some operations, e.g. cloning, got is still way slower.
  - MBCook 13y ago
    But most people were comparing it to CVS or SVN, and it was much faster than those.
alok-g 13y ago
>> Bazaar failed because, at the beginning, it was painfully slow compare to git and mercurial. It speed has increase over time, but bad reputation is hard to get rid of. Is this an example that goes against the common advice to launch an MVP fast to test the market (and then keep on improving)? It seems that the advice is valid only when there is nothing for the customer to compare the to-be-launched product to. If competing products end up launching at around the same time as yours, the advice may turn its head on you.
- jeltz 13y ago
  Git was also early to the market, but had a fast core and terrible user interface. Git was used for the Linux kernel only two months after Linus had started coding.
- radioact1ve 13y ago
  This is a good point. Is there more to this? As a big believer in the MVP, this is something I have to look more into.
- bronson 13y ago
  Well, as this article implies, a lot of people don't consider bzr's speed minimally viable.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel. Bet bitkeeper regretted that decision...

twoodfin 13y ago
If I recall, the zeitgeist then was that bitkeeper was a necessary evil. My guess is that git would have come into being eventually in any circumstances short of bitkeeper becoming free software, and maybe even then. Distributed change management is such a critical component of the kernel development process (especially for Linus and the other maintainers) that relying on someone else's software seems suboptimal.
- frenchy 13y ago
  The reason Bitkeeper dropped the kernel was that certain kernel devs had started writing free software to interact with the kernel repository (they wanted to be able to perform certain tasks that bitkeeper couldn't). Had this continued, we would probably have ended up seeing a free version of Bitkeeper.
justincormack 13y ago
They don't seem to have updated their website since http://www.bitkeeper.com/ http://www.bitkeeper.com/

jwr 13y ago

I'd say git is popular not just because of Linus, but also because it is oriented towards "just getting stuff done", rather than towards theoretical concepts. You can rewrite history, fix your mistakes, and generally do whatever you want. When merging, git isn't picky, either: if the code looks the same, it is the same. In-place branching is hugely useful, just switch your tree in an instant (your editor should update the contents of your files automatically). So is the stash. Overall, it's just a useful tool that doesn't try to teach you "how things should theoretically be done", and never says "well in order to get X, you should have done this a long time ago".

unethical_ban 13y ago
Except bzr is conceptually easier to learn and has a more consistent command syntax than git.
- andrewem 13y ago
  What are some of the conceptual differences that make bzr easier to learn? (I agree that git's command syntax is inconsistent.)
  - gizmogwai 13y ago
    Command names are closer to SVN/CVS ones, which lower the learning curve for similar concepts. The documentation really is at another level of didactic compare to git, and no, pro-git is not enough neither. Changes are tracked automatically, no need to explicitly add the files you changed to a particular commit (Whether or not it is a good idea is another discussion). Empty directories can be versioned, no need to create a .gitignore in it to fool the system (Same remark as above).
  - unethical_ban 13y ago
    The syntax is part of it being easier. Also, though it's been a while since I tried using any official git documentation, bzr's website had handy tutorials, references, and cheatsheets available. Great layout, assumed no VCS experience.

riquito 13y ago

Git was by far the fastest, this was a big factor when evaluating the move from svn (or similar) to a new system.

jordigh 13y ago
Not at all, early git was way slower than early hg. For some operations, e.g. cloning, got is still way slower.
- MBCook 13y ago
  But most people were comparing it to CVS or SVN, and it was much faster than those.

alok-g 13y ago

>> Bazaar failed because, at the beginning, it was painfully slow compare to git and mercurial. It speed has increase over time, but bad reputation is hard to get rid of. Is this an example that goes against the common advice to launch an MVP fast to test the market (and then keep on improving)? It seems that the advice is valid only when there is nothing for the customer to compare the to-be-launched product to. If competing products end up launching at around the same time as yours, the advice may turn its head on you.

jeltz 13y ago
Git was also early to the market, but had a fast core and terrible user interface. Git was used for the Linux kernel only two months after Linus had started coding.
radioact1ve 13y ago
This is a good point. Is there more to this? As a big believer in the MVP, this is something I have to look more into.
bronson 13y ago
Well, as this article implies, a lot of people don't consider bzr's speed minimally viable.