[whoknowsidont]

>I don't buy this.

It's not really debatable. Git flow came about because of SVN / CVS practices and was the first and for many still is THE branching model they use.

>Yet all of us have been using Git for ages

You say "all of us" but then you completely ignore the primary branching model the vast, vast majority of people use on Git.

Just for the record, this isn't being stated in support of git-flow it's just a historical fact that's not really debatable.

[ncphillips]

> the primary branching model the vast, vast majority of people use on Git.

> it's just a historical fact that's not really debatable.

Over my last 15 years of software dev, I have _never_ heard of anyone actually using Gitflow in their codebase.

I'm not saying you're wrong. My experience is anecdotal. But I don't know why you say it's a "fact". Was there surveys or anything?

[zamalek]

I'm not questioning your experience, but how "enterprise" is that experience? Gitflow was no small part of my convincing my company to move off TFVC. I doubt they still use, but it was shallow waters for scared folk.

I strongly doubt that my story, just as much as yours, is unique.

[throwaway150]

> It's not really debatable.

Very weird for you to start a reply like this when we are literally debating it.

> You say "all of us"

Yes, I mean those of who don't use git-flow. That's what I meant by "all of us".

> ignore the primary branching model the vast, vast majority of people use on Git.

Do you live in a git-flow bubble or what? I've been using VCS since the dark ages of CVS. Moved to SVN. Mercurial. Git. Never worked in a team using git-flow. Never used git-flow myself. Never met anyone IRL who uses git-flow. I only read about these things on HN and blogs.

What kind of stats do you have to claim that this is the primary branching model. If I go by my experience, it's a minority branching model that only people living within the bubble care about.

> it's just a historical fact that's not really debatable.

What is a historical fact? That people use git-flow. Nobody is contesting that. What I am contesting is that the success of Git is not connected to git-flow like the grand-grand-parent comment said.

[whoknowsidont]

I'm not debating it... we're not debating it. You're having it explained to you.

>If I go by my experience

That would be the very definition of a bubble.

[quietbritishjim]

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on Hacker News. You really think git became popular because someone wrote up a branching convention for it?

Git became popular because it was one of the first two open source distributed version control systems. Compared to the least-bad open source (non distributed) version control system before, SVN, the native branches and the ability to have a local copy of the whole tree were self evidently a revolution.

(The other one was Mercurial by the way, released at almost exactly the same time as git. Partly git won that race because of the cachet of being written by Torvalds and being used for the kernel, but I suspect mainly it was due to the existence of GitHub.)

Aside from the above, it's also just clearly not true that git flow was particularly common. It's no good claiming anyone that disagrees is in a bubble. We all have access to GitHub! Look for yourself at some random repos (and make sure you sample a few different languages). It will verify my experience of looking at dozens, probably hundreds, of repos over many years: the number of people using git-flow is, to a first order approximation, roughly zero.

[whoknowsidont]

The time you spent writing this comment you could have been googling.

I know it's within HN's nature to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian but this is absurd.

[quietbritishjim]

Your previous comment was ludicrously arrogant and overconfident ("You're having it explained to you.") especially given that you're wrong.

Rather than lower myself to your level, I carefully explained the reality of the situation, complete with a mention of how I actually did check what you said (despite having overwhelmingly enough experience of version control to already be certain it's nonsense).

Clearly you didn't do the reasonable thing of rethinking your understanding or checking for yourself because you took your arrogance up a notch by telling me to do a Google.

Please get a grip on yourself.

[whoknowsidont]

>I carefully explained the reality of the situation

No you didn't, because it's not factual lol.

[throwaway150]

> I'm not debating it... we're not debating it. You're having it explained to you.

You have not explained anything.

> That would be the very definition of a bubble.

Just as is your bubble.