Github was an early pusher of "Code of Conduct" cancer, I don't feel sorry for their fate.

Also, why not mercurial? I find it superior to git in almost every way.

@DanielKO I find more concern in the community around GitHub at this point than the service itself. I remember the code of conduct crap.

@DanielKO One of the reasons I don't praise them. Another being I'm not on board with copyleft

Git originating from a copyleft group

iirc

But they don't force you to any of those things (copyleft, code of conduct), tho.

*stops using github*

Git came from Linus, he's against copyleft. You're not well informed in the subject.

@DanielKO why is the kernel under GPL 2 then?

He regrets it.

It's impractical to relicense it, with tens of thousands of contributors that would need to be contacted.

Git was born out of a shitshow, where Linus wanted everyone to use his friend's proprietary tool, BitKeeper.

Git is great. You don't want to go back to svn.

Hg is better.

@DanielKO lol that is a retelling of history. Bitkeeper changed their license

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper#Pricing_change

@DanielKO anyone that says X source control system is better than the other when they are both blatently similar is either trolling or clueless.

Also SVN is better for some projects than Git

https://i.redd.it/vt2wqr5i6f211.jpg

Yes, SVN has its use cases, but I came not across them.

Dude, I saw the BitKeeper shitshow unfold.

The creator got butthurt because the community didn't want to use his proprietary client. So they started reverse engineering it with telnet. Then he got so pissed off, he revoked the free license he had granted to the Linux project.

when did that happen?

hasn'

t bit keeper been around since forever?

Alleging they broke the EULA against reverse engineering when installing the client. But since they didn't use the client to reverse engineer, no license was breached.

Right before git was created.

BitKeeper revoked the license, Linux development shut down for a month, while Linus was writing git.

but it's open source now, right?

And you know how SVN was a leap over CVS, because it tracks the whole repo instead of individual files? Guess what, git is designed to also track individual files instead of whole repo, while hg tracks the repo by default.

Open source since 2016, after its user base dropped to nearly zero.

I don't know of a single developer who ever used BitKeeper voluntarily.

A bit like Visual Source Safe, where not even Microsoft would use that steaming pile of shit, but would gladly sell licenses and support.

Typical email in a VSS environment: "who the fuck went home early while holding the lock on this file I need to update?"

i had to use VSS, it gave me ptsd and cancer

It's amazing how Microsoft engineers couldn't figure out it's possible to merge files that were changed concurrently.

I think they could have done that, it's probably more along the lines of whether they liked the feature or deemed it unnecessary.

My main gripe with git is how horribly it fails to "work" as soon as you deviate from the regular "add-commit-push" workflow.

And you have to scramble to stackoverflow to get help.

yeah but I don't know of a better alternative.