Technically there isn't a single version of Git either, though (thankfully) they can all operate on the same repositories (whereas in UNIX land, you'll find different file systems that the others do not support). They do however have some different capabilities. jGit for instance can push to S3, which is pretty neat.
It's literally not all git. Every single thing I mentioned outside of the git repository itself is not git, and makes up a significant amount of services that would require disparate, specific replacements and buy in and compatibility with all of the developers, teams and units of a company. It's a vast, extremely costly amount of work.
Just throwing up a server somewhere running git and a few software packages is nowhere near the same thing.
You're completely ignoring the massive adoption and extension of git by the industry. Its not like git is still developed in service to kernel dev exclusively.
Git is great. It’s FOSS, but that doesn’t mean it’s immune to a hostile corporate takeover. Take email for example. It’s an open standard, yet it’s usage is dominated by large corporate players.
It's all fair. Looking back at my comment I sounded a little bit harsh and I apologize for that.
What I was trying to establish is that there's really no solid ground to claim that any Git platform is a copy of another one since they are all essentially productivity and team-work wrappers around Git.
If you're talking about the general information architecture that's how SourceForge was even before Git existed, so hardly an original idea.
reply