New features from the last few versions of Git
blog.github.com
New features from the last few versions of Git
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#2Please use the original title.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#3I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange.
[1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-has-been-release... [2]: https://blog.github.com/2017-05-10-git-2-13-has-been-release...
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#4I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-ha…
It's a sane marketing strategy, let's not blame them for this.
They are, after all, a major actor of the git ecosystem, with a great track record, using quality blog posts to inform your of their main tech.
I see zero problem with this.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#5I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-ha…
I don't know... While the title might give that impression, the opening paragraph seems pretty up-front about distinguishing "the open source Git project" from GitHub ("here's our look..."). They don't even mention their not-insignificant contributions to the project, nor do they say things like "we added [x]", even though they legitimately might be able to in some cases.
And, given their line of work, it would be kind of surprising if the GitHub blog didn't cover recent Git developments.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#6I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-ha…
Open source developers have to eat too. I think it's a win-win. GitHub makes money by leveraging open source and they pay their employees to contribute to Git that benefits everyone.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#7I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-ha…
Writing genuinely informative articles about your company's area of competence is a very widespread marketing approach. Just earlier today I've read a brief overview on moment theater written by some theater's marketing team. They didn't try to hide that it's a material designed to sell their tickets, but it didn't make it any less interesting.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#8I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-ha…
I don't know... While the title might give that impression, the opening paragraph seems pretty up-front about distinguishing "the open source Git project" from GitHub ("here's our look..."). They don't even mention their not-insignificant contributions to the project, nor do they say things like "we added [x]", even though they legitimately might be able to in some cases. And, given their line of work, it would be ki…
Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by:
- Git 2.17 is now available (gitlab.com)
- Git 2.17 is now available (bitbucket.com)
The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github. Anecdote example: my university lecturer calls Github APIs "git APIs". While that might not be a bad thing, it blurs the boundary between an open source project and a company.
I can already imagine Github having influence on the direction of git project and becomes the de facto owner, and the impact on its competitors and the repository hosting industry. The equivalence would be Microsoft, instead of owning TypeScript, owns the ECMAScript specification.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#9I'm wondering whether the intention with these sorts of blog posts (GitHub has done several of these in the past[1,2], where they provide a summary of the release notes) is to try to put in people's minds the link that "git" == "GitHub". To be fair, the author is actually the 2nd largest contributor (by commits) to the git project. Just thought it was a bit strange. [1]: https://blog.github.com/2016-11-29-git-2-11-ha…
It's a sane marketing strategy, let's not blame them for this. They are, after all, a major actor of the git ecosystem, with a great track record, using quality blog posts to inform your of their main tech. I see zero problem with this.
I run a few websites, and you bet that each of them will give shutouts to each other.
They are all free, they all help users.
git and github has helped me, and ive never paid. I consider all of this fantastic.
Re: New features from the last few versions of Git
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know... While the title might give that impression, the opening paragraph seems pretty up-front about distinguishing "the open source Git project" from GitHub ("here's our look..."). They don't even mention their not-insignificant contributions to the project, nor do they say things like "we added [x]", even though they legitimately might be able to in some cases. And, given their line of work, it would be ki…
Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by: - Git 2.17 is now available (gitlab.com) - Git 2.17 is now available (bitbucket.com) The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github. Anecdote example: my university lecturer calls Github APIs "git APIs". While that might not be a bad thing, it blurs the boundary between an open source project and a company. I can already imag…
>Out of curiosity, would you be surprised by
No, not at all.
>The point is, by publishing this kind of posts, Github is making you associate git with Github
Well, git IS associated with GitHub. It's the de facto #1 hosting service for Git repositories, eclipsing all others, and the #1 host of open source git repos. They're also major contributors to Git.
But regardless of all that, they host git repos. They literally work with people that use Git, day in, day out, and help them host their git managed code.
Of course they'll cover developments in Git. Who else would be more natural to cover them (aside something like "Git planet")? The GTK+ blog? The IEEE?