GitHub Evolution: A New Era in Software Development
- GitHub introduced a new structure for projects, focusing on the person rather than the project
- GitHub provided essential tools like issue trackers, pull requests, and release pages
- GitHub’s archival work has made it a library of software commons, but raises concerns about centralization
The Buzz Score
The Internet’s Verdict: 70% Hyped, 30% Skeptical
What GitHub Gave Us
GitHub gave developers a lot of freedom and flexibility. As one user noted,
> What GitHub Gave Us To me one of the clear things that GitHub gave us was a structure around a person rather than a project. To me it felt liberating to quickly create a repository attached to my name than it was to go through the (what felt to me) very serious process of coming up with a project name and reserving it on sourceforge just to get a cvs or svn repository
Alternatives to GitHub
Some developers still prefer alternatives like Fossil. As one user said,
I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS.
Archival Work
GitHub’s archival work has been both beneficial and problematic. As one user pointed out,
Having something that’s centralized but helpful-99%-of-the-time atrophies our collective archival skills. If everything had to be seeded by someone to keep it alive, everyone would be better at holding on to their copies of the things they really cared about instead of being able to assume they can just check it out again when they want to.
Focus Keyword: GitHub History
