> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.