From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david@lang.hm Subject: Re: Git User's Survey 2008 partial summary, part 5 - other SCM Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200809031607.19722.jnareb@gmail.com> <200809112214.18366.jnareb@gmail.com> <200809121244.59067.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 13 23:11:52 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KecPH-0007P5-V8 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:11:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752498AbYIMVKi (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:10:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751698AbYIMVKi (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:10:38 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:47403 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751462AbYIMVKh (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:10:37 -0400 Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m8DLAYbP032216; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:10:34 -0700 X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm In-Reply-To: <200809121244.59067.jnareb@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:51, david@lang.hm wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> > True, I have forgot that "I use this SCM" (or "I used this SCM") doesn't > necessarily mean that one _choose_ this SCM. One can use some SCM > because it is SCM project uses, or because their company requires it; > but not necessary, as git-svn and git-p4 show one can use Git, and > make it interact with respectively Subversion and Perforce, and trying > to make it look like one uses this other SCM. I would expect people to still count those as using the other SCM. git-svn and git-p4 can do a lot, but they don't do everything, once in a while I would expect to need to use the native commands for the upstream SCM >> I find it interesting that the number of people who use git and the other >> DVCS systems in so small. Is this becouse the 'market share' of those >> other systems is small? Or becouse people who learn git aren't willing to >> put up with other systems (or vice-versa)? Or is there some other trend >> or tendancy that makes people who select one DVCS more likely to work on >> similar projects, so people interested in those types of projects will >> generally just see a single DVCS system > > I don't think 59% (in the example case of using currently Subversion) > is small. Take into account for example that there are people who (as > seen from responses to other questions in this survey) use SCM (Git) > only to track their private work, never publishing. Then there are > people who do not track (perhaps with exception of web interfaces) > other projects development using version control systems, even if they > do follow their development. Subversion is not a Distributed SCM. I am pointing out the much smaller overlap between distributed SCM systems. David Lang