|
Haha - in enough ways, git is shit. I'm not disagreeing, though. I think you're right (for the "foreseeable future"). CVS, SVN, etc., really became serious obstacles once you moved to larger projects and more distributed teams etc. Hell, they caused problems even with small colocated teams. I think it's clear that git (and its forerunners, esp. "BitKeeper") meets a solid "good enough" standard. Potential competitors from that era, including, in particular, "Mercurial", largely fall into categories of "trade-offs". But, I am, personally, very happy to see the work that's been done with "Pijul", including completing a "theory of merging". I don't think Pijul has much of a chance in even 10+ years of replacing git (and "GitHub", part of the success story of git). But, I do think it'll see some use, become a solid foundation for some projects, and, there's a reasonable chance it will influence or become the foundation of some "next git" and/or future versions of git. With the caveat, of course, that forecasting anything on those kinds of timeframes is even more of a fools errand now than it was even ~15+ years ago (about when git was first developed). |
Which "trade-offs" are you referring to?
Mercurial was, and still is, a solid DVCS. It's not often used today because it lost the popularity contest, due to several reasons[0], but technically it's as good as Git, and functionally it's even better. It has a much saner and friendlier UI, which is the main complaint about Git.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095925