Not just that. They invented "pull requests" and offered (initially minimal) code review tools. This made contributing in the open.much easier, and making small contributions, vastly easier.
Something like git had to take over svn / cvs / rcs. It could be Perforce, it could be BitKeeper which apparently pioneered the approach. But it had to be open-source, or at least free. Git won not just because it was technically superior; it also won because it was at the same time free software.
Pull requests predate Git. The kernel developers used them in the Bitkeeper days:
I exported this a patch and then imported onto a clone of Marcelo's
tree, so it appears as a single cset where the changes that got un-done
never happened. I've done some sanity tests on it, and will test it
some more tomorrow. Take a look at it and let me know if I missed
anything. When Andy is happy with it I'll leave it to him to re-issue a
pull request from Marcelo.
I do not know to what extent Bitkeeper had browser-based workflows. Moving cross-repository merges away from the command line may actually have been innovative, but of course of little interest to kernel developers.
That's interesting. I know BK had "pulls", but iirc it didn't have a "request-pull" command, so clearly the "pull" terminology came from BK and the "request" part came from how people talked about it in email.
I actually just shot a video showing how BitKeeper was used. I'll post that and a blog post on our GitButler blog soon.
Mercurial also supported pull requests. The unique thing about github was an easy central place to do them from and ensuring they didn't get lost. Once you have a github account you can fork a project make a change and pull request it in a few minutes. emailing a patch isn't hard, but with github you don't have to look up what address to email it to, if you just say open pull requests it typically goes to the right place the first time.
I remember we used a tool, I think it was Gerrit, before I'd heard of GitHub or Pull Requests. It worked with patches which is also how we used to share code, through email with patches. GitHub won because it had a cleaner UI and a likable name.
Something like git had to take over svn / cvs / rcs. It could be Perforce, it could be BitKeeper which apparently pioneered the approach. But it had to be open-source, or at least free. Git won not just because it was technically superior; it also won because it was at the same time free software.