On 10/22/18 8:02 AM, Jerome Kieffer wrote: > About 10 years ago, I heard "gitub made git useable for human being". > At that time mercurial, bazar and git were equally used and it was a > mess to chose one of them and then select a workflow to work with. > The work github did (their tutorials !) deserve recognition to simplify > all this.
10 years ago, bazar was, and it still is, not good already. Mercurial was also less nice than Git, even though they both started at the same time, mostly because mercurial needed more low level commands to achieve the same result. Git also gain popularity because of non-technical things, like the name of its original author. I do not agree that Github is the reason why people are using Git these days. It's simply because Git is better than all of the others. I don't agree that Github deserves any recognition either. > Please remind gitlab (which salsa is just an implementation) was > originally just a re-implementation github hosted initially on github ! There are many problems with the way Github (and now also, Gitlab) implements pull requests. The workflow is simply horrible. Why should I need to fork a repository, change the git remote, and push to a different repository, just in order to push a patch? This is a non-sense, and it's shameful that Gitlab copied it. For this, Github deserves finger-pointing. > Maybe this company is private and has been acquired by > another you don't like. No. Github was using proprietary software before Microsoft's acquisition and most Debian people advised against using Github for years before it. Now that it has happened, it looks like a lot of people understand better why we were saying it. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
