It's sad, because there are other useful work flows, but GitHub is SCM at this point. I agree with what someone said elsewhere, they could swap out git for bitkeeper and nobody would care (well the people that are still butthurt over the licensing would whine but it's apache v2 now, that should be good enough).
I'm sorry, what dev conferences are you going to? You're kind of just claiming that these same people are too stupid to understand what git allows you to do out of the box so they wouldn't mind BitKeeper's (or any other SCM like it) problems and limitations as long as GitHub hosted it for them with a nice logo (which again, isn't true because other hosted SCM's solutions lost as well). That's just incredibly tone deaf and doesn't make sense from a historical timeline perspective. This is just straight up denial at this point.
>well the people that are still butthurt over the licensing would whine but it's apache v2 now, that should be good enough
It's not just a licensing issue and you know it. You are being dishonest with everyone here and yourself. There is a historical record in the lkml archives that you're choosing to ignore.
Except for nearly every single open source project.
>Mercurial, in large part for its superior cross-platform support.
And then that got side stepped by the obvious problems with repository size and branching issues (that hg would go onto address later).
>I stand by my position.
If you want to ignore a pretty basic historical timeline that's totally up to you.
Indeed I was, and FWIW I distinctly remember everyone throwing their weight behind Mercurial, in large part for its superior cross-platform support.
I stand by my position. git usage would be minor without GitHub. GitHub could switch off git if they wanted to and they'd take most of the git user base with them.