Still just a cringey excuse to attach a trademark to a common practice, only sans the "Microsoft".
(OK, "git flow" was in a way even worse; that was Atlassian trying to usurp the generic "git" name for their own particular flow.)
(OK, "git flow" was in a way even worse; that was Atlassian trying to usurp the generic "git" name for their own particular flow.)
I don't understand any of this sentence. Of course it's "sans Microsoft". It predated the acquisition by years.
But also I don't see the "cringe" here. "GitHub flow" was introduced as "this is what we do at GitHub". It is (or at least was?) the GitHib flow. https://githubflow.github.io/
> OK, "git flow" was in a way even worse; that was Atlassian trying to usurp the generic "git" name for their own particular flow.
Atlassian didn't even create GitFlow. https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
I don't understand this mindset that starts with assuming everyone is essentially a bad actor.
It's pretty hilarious how some people use "I don't understand..." to imply that whatever it is they don't understand is bad, apparently completely oblivious to how it actually speaks more to their own powers of comprehension.
For example, when I said "I don't understand" to your "Still just a cringey excuse..." comment, what I was really saying was "this sentence is poorly written and hard to understand, and you also clearly don't understand the context of where the term actually came from".
When I said "I don't understand" about assuming people are bad actors, I was really saying "you seem to be using the assumption of bad intent to mask your ignorance about the things you're talking about".
So now, I'll say I don't understand why you're nitpicking my use of the phrase "I don't understand" instead of responding to anything of substance I said.
By this of course I mean that it's clearly easier for you to attack my intellect than for you to self-reflect.