Why SQLite Does Not Use Git

Re:Why SQLite Does Not Use Git by luckydude on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @01:20PM (#16813333)

I agree with cookiecaper. We went hard (for us) into marketing before giving up and what we learned by going to dev conferences is that people think GitHub is source management. If you talk about any sort of workflow other than what github provides you can just see their brain switch off.

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).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why SQLite Does Not Use Git by kadenshep on Wednesday April 11, 2018 @02:17PM (#16813859)

>If you talk about any sort of workflow other than what github provides you can just see their brain switch off.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]