That seems very unlikely. Github is the entire reason git is so popular, vs. any of the other distributed VC systems.

Github was like Yahoo's directory, a way to share content in a searchable place and as a backup/bounce point. In the early days you could also upload to 'downloads' so it was a quick share host. Before that we had email, exposed ssh and cgit/gitweb but Github gave us `PR` to promote social interactions with forking. So it could be argued that Github tainted the spirit of git.

Having personally evolved from making date stamped zip files, to subversion and then to git, it earned its place quite quickly for myself and my roaming nature, didn't hurt who hacked it together either. When Linux adopted it from Bitkeeper, it became the way for many.

Personally I prefer GitLab over GitHub. The CI is better, and it doesn't go down every other week unless you self host on Azure.

I have no problem with letting an IDE or LLM handle those details in practice... but I don't think I'd want to work with someone who doesn't understand the very basics of what's going on under the hood.

The GP said "open a PR", not "make a commit and push it to a remote".

When I tell my LLM to "open a PR for those changes" (which is how I do it nowadays), my LLM understands that what I mean is "make a commit, push it to a remote and raise a PR".

Does it mean we've reached AGI when machines understand what we mean better than some humans?

This makes it seem like all of those things are part of a single operation to you. That doesn't make sense to me.

On the occasions where I've submitted a PR to a project (anywhere, not just on Github), making the commit was not part of the same operation. I'd already made the commit and satisfied myself that it captured everything I wanted, before making the PR. I don't see those things as part of a single operation. I don't think the poster you were responding to does either.

  > That doesn't make sense to me.

1. Navigate your browser to GitHub.mycompany.example.com

2. Click the repo name

3. Click pull requests

4. Click the source branch[1] and destination branch

5. Click "create pull request"

???

I started out by assuming this was some kind of good-faith disagreement, but I guess you're just trying to be funny.

[1] Presumably already extant, because they never mentioned anything about committing code, nor pushing it to github (and that's not the same operation!).

The OP said:

"we also ask the candidate to open a PR"

So I think the OP meant to have the candidate, um, open a PR. Which is not the same thing as making a commit and pushing it to a remote. Maybe you always conflate those operations, but that doesn't make them the same operation. If the OP actually meant "make a commit, push it to the remote, and then open a PR", I would have expected the OP to say, um, all of those things, instead of just the last one.

I couldn't say how the OP expected the candidate to open a PR, since I don't know what their standard workflow is. There are ways of doing it from the CLI, as well as through the web interface, as well as through various IDEs.

> I started out by assuming this was some kind of good-faith disagreement, but I guess you're just trying to be funny.

Please save your patronizing for another time. And stop trying to put words in my mouth.