I've gotten to the point that I will often choose a different library if the one I'm looking at isn't already on github because their interface is so nice for browsing code (not to mention finding useful forks).
Me too. I'll tolerate Google Code or whatever if I know the library is good, but if I'm just googling for stuff (well, duck duck going), I'm a lot more likely to say "eh, let's keep looking" if it's not on github.
I think this is because a project being on github is a huge signal of "I care about my project" which I want if I'm going to be leaning on it for my project.
Like they say, you can always tell if a google code project is active if it says "we've moved to github..."
Github just needs a "Google Groups" without the spam and they're set.
Why is being on github a "huge signal" that they care? They're pushing code into the wild, giving it away for free and actively maintaining it - who cares where they host it if the code is good code?
I'm getting really disturbed at this "if it's not on github it doesn't exist" meme. In the past it was "if it's not on sourceforge it doesn't exist" - what's next?
If the code is good code, then it's good code. You're right about that and I certainly don't go around thinking "If it's not on github, it's bad code."
However, Github makes it very easy to inspect both the source code and the activity around the project. To me, the community that is developing around github is just as important as the code. I don't find that disturbing. I also like what Bitbucket is doing for what it's worth.
Sourceforge, Google Code and a lot of other hosted solutions rely on advertising to make money. They're trying to sell clicks from a click-averse audience and it affects the service. Github is paid for by developers who want great tools. I won't hold it against a development group for picking something other than github but I think developers who want good tools will migrate there. I won't miss sourceforge. If it were merely a fashion trend, I would agree with you but I think github fundamentally changes the way you interact with code.
I'm in the same boat here. The only reason I use git is for github -- for work or collaborating with other people on something. And even then, unless I need branching, I'll still use Mercurial, through the hg-git plugin they provide[1].
Nothing against people who use git. If it works for you, use it. I don't like it because of its arcane incantations and tendency to let me destroy my work for the past few hours by using the wrong command. The features are great. But, not what I'm looking for in a DVCS. But, thats just me.
> [...] and tendency to let me destroy my work for the past few hours by using the wrong command.
I have the same misgivings about Mercurial. I guess it depends on what you are used to. Conceptually git and Mercurial are isomorphic. (See http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GitConcepts for an explanation.)
While none of the popular DVCS's perfectly match my normal workflow, bazaar is usually the closest. i see the power of git, but i don't really need its particular power bits and i find both mercurial and bazaar easier to work with.
Just curious, how don't they match your workflow, and what about Git's power features gets in your way? You can just not use things like interactive rebase if you don't want.
I didnt say that git's power features get in my way. I said I don't need most of them and I find other DCVSs easier to work with. Git can fit in with my workflow just fine except for one thing... I find it overly complicated. I find fossil, bazaar and mercurial all easier to work with. And part of my workflow is 'not overly complicated'. For me, git is a constant battle to remember how to do things.
