From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On the popularity of git [Was: Git question: when using branches, how does git treat working files when changing branches?] Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:50:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20151028192017.GC2538@acm.fritz.box> <87k2q6wy8p.fsf@linaro.org> <20151028223252.GD2538@acm.fritz.box> <87vb9qd2h4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <20151028235340.GE2538@acm.fritz.box> <87ziz213wx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20151029123554.GB2510@acm.fritz.box> <87h9l995ec.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20151029170237.GF2510@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb98498a29c052351e281 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446209503 24601 80.91.229.3 (30 Oct 2015 12:51:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 30 13:51:37 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zs99c-0007c8-OM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:51:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50507 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zs99X-00042u-9G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:51:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zs99S-00042m-Uw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:51:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zs99R-0006OK-K1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:51:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]:34983) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zs99R-0006O7-9p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:51:25 -0400 Original-Received: by lfbn126 with SMTP id n126so32437495lfb.2 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5jtZkazuqPBGUobIPk4J2bR+f1ws2u10NPubQ2eD+Ns=; b=tNogYQ662zkAG8y4qZ1gHrFFWuOC5mphmcunL6JZMBOKQYyTzMgipkIktqO3sh/Jwr IEkGLue1NUvYx2ArnAOAyM/zw/kaof2AOMN3podhxSfOqFv3BK5m0SXCs2LnkEjIF5cl oQ37bQehLTXAqMP4RBNGp5hdyYUkWFIKflBldCfmiGoW/UEbSpZ0DUHO+DY1ZuPXfYNW FZv274RdqpFGT8IOlrYJxh+np/h2DwR9iop4hJnUfZ49fvOp/4z5d+O1i/adPOstvDie Xts2caV6LtnHM987DwbhAVJGKxLLfnGmBSGw7kiBXJTRn38Hd3yqH3RJ33kolNt5Z+Xj iaCw== X-Received: by 10.25.16.195 with SMTP id 64mr2630639lfq.62.1446209484528; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.217.135 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:50:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151029170237.GF2510@acm.fritz.box> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::232 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:192964 Archived-At: --001a113fb98498a29c052351e281 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > I've been wondering about git's popularity for some long time. That > git's complexity is not necessary in a powerful VCS is demonstrated by > the counterexamples of hg and (to a lesser extent) bzr. > > git had (and has) Linux behind it, thus giving a lot of hackers being > forced to learn git early on. This surely gave git a huge advantage in > numbers at the start of the competition. Of course there's not a single factor that made git so popular, but there are a few ones that surely weighted in the final situation. In no particular order: - Not only git has Linux behind, but it has *Linus* behind. He is revered by a lot of hackers, who give a lot of weight to his opinions. - It's *very* fast. - Its foundation (its data model) is seen as elegant, even if its UI is less than friendly. - It's very flexible and hackable, and built from basic components, in the "software tools" spirit. - It was perceived as a David vs Goliath thing. BitKeeper pulls out, Linus builds a replacement in a few days. - It really hadn't much competition. Subversion, though good, is not distributed. Bazaar was too slow. Mercurial had no critical mass. Other alternatives (svk, Darcs. etc.) were even more marginal. - It had, since the beginning, an active development community. Other dVCS have smaller development communities (think Bazaar...) so it has progressed at a good pace. All of these (IMHO, of course) and others that I forget surely contributed to its gaining momentum. Whether git is the best tool or not is largely irrelevant now. I think even detractors have to admit it works well enough and it's fast and responsive, and even its more ardent evangelists won't discuss its abysmal UI (whenever I'm starting to like it, I do "git help log" and I'm suddenly cured). My 0.02=C2=A2 Juanma --001a113fb98498a29c052351e281 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> I've been wonderi= ng about git's popularity for some long time.=C2=A0 That
> git= 9;s complexity is not necessary in a powerful VCS is demonstrated by=
> the counterexamples of hg and (to a lesser extent) bzr.
>
> git had (and has) Linux behind it, thus giving a lot of= hackers being
> forced to learn git early on.=C2=A0 This surely gave= git a huge advantage in
> numbers at the start of the competition.
Of course there's not a single factor that made git so= popular, but there are a few ones that surely weighted in the final situat= ion.

In no particular order:

<= div>- Not only git has Linux behind, but it has *Linus* behind. He is rever= ed by a lot of hackers, who give a lot of weight to his opinions.
- It's *very* fast.
- Its foundation (its data model) is see= n as elegant, even if its UI is less than friendly.
- It&#= 39;s very flexible and hackable, and built from basic components, in the &q= uot;software tools" spirit.
- It was perceived as a David vs= Goliath thing. BitKeeper pulls out, Linus builds a replacement in a= few days.
- It really hadn't much competition. Subversion, t= hough good, is not distributed. Bazaar was too slow. Mercurial had no criti= cal mass. Other alternatives (svk, Darcs. etc.) were even mo= re marginal.
- It had, since the beginning, an active develop= ment community.=C2=A0Other dVCS have smaller development communitie= s (think Bazaar...) so it has progressed at a good pace.

All of these (IMHO, of course) and others that I forget surely contr= ibuted to its gaining momentum.

Whether git is the= best tool or not is largely irrelevant now. I think even detractors have t= o admit it works well enough and it's fast and responsive, and even its= more ardent evangelists won't discuss its abysmal UI (wheneve= r I'm starting to like it, I do "git help log" and I'm su= ddenly cured).

My 0.02=C2=A2

=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma
--001a113fb98498a29c052351e281--