[malicka]

I would argue it being proprietary would be completely unacceptable, for such a position of importance.

In any case, Git has become tremendously entrenched over the past couple decades. Anything that hopes to replace it would have to be significantly better to break from the inertia Git has. I’m honestly skeptical as to whether this is even possible in the near future. We’re not at all in the same historical moment as when SVN was beaten out.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

yeah, it used to be that things like Perforce could still exist, because when they were created, they could do things that their OSS equivalents could not.

but since then, so many people have gotten used to the basic model that git offers (even if they still have issues with details of the syntax).

to gain a foothold in this environment is a monumental task, and anything that wasn't unambiguously libre and probably gratis too has little hope.

[sasham]

Perforce still exists and doing well, just because Git can't handle binary files and large repos. Which is a silly limitation these days.

[nine_k]

JJ has a good chance, because it builds on top of git, not replacing it abruptly.

[jasomill]

I was just thinking that. I first started using Git to interact with Subversion repositories as a better svn than svn, and I'm surely not the only one.

[antod]

git's replacement won't be there because it was better at being what git is (too entrenched), but because git became redundant as the world changed around it. As agentic development takes over and people stop caring about source code, all the tooling (including languages themselves) and approaches to assist humans will be ripe for replacing with those for machines.

[mckn1ght]

Exactly. Big “generals always prepare to fight the last war” energy.