{"thread":{"id":"6983","subject":"Trivia: When did git self-host?","startedAt":"2007-02-26T23:51:13Z","lastAt":"2007-02-28T06:48:47Z","messageCount":8,"participants":["Mike Coleman","Shawn O. Pearce","Johannes Schindelin","Linus Torvalds","Daniel Barkalow","Martin Langhoff"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"35553","messageId":"3c6c07c20702261551u55ec2ea7mde4075b1c929cf87@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Mike Coleman","fromEmail":"tutufan@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-02-26T23:51:13Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-26T23:51:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tutufan@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Does anyone recall when git first self-hosted? This doesn't seem to\nbe present on the GitHistory page on the wiki, and I'm not finding it\nelsewhere.\n\nI suppose this could mean different things, but roughly I'm curious\nabout the earliest point at which all further commits were\nhuman-generated, in real time, as opposed to the machine-generated\ncommits of some robo-import script. I'm not seeing this transition in\nthe git-log, which seems to go continuously back to the very beginning\n(which is a little disturbing :-).\n\nMike\n"},{"id":"35555","messageId":"20070226235730.GG1639@spearce.org","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"3c6c07c20702261551u55ec2ea7mde4075b1c929cf87@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Shawn O. Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2007-02-26T23:57:30Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-26T23:57:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"Mike Coleman wrote:\n> Does anyone recall when git first self-hosted? This doesn't seem to\n> be present on the GitHistory page on the wiki, and I'm not finding it\n> elsewhere.\n> \n> I suppose this could mean different things, but roughly I'm curious\n> about the earliest point at which all further commits were\n> human-generated, in real time, as opposed to the machine-generated\n> commits of some robo-import script. I'm not seeing this transition in\n> the git-log, which seems to go continuously back to the very beginning\n> (which is a little disturbing :-).\n\nI think it was day 1. One of Linus' goals was to have something\nthat could track itself, as that meant he was on the right path...\nI think he worked about 8 hours or so on Git code before he was\nable to actually commit something, and about that point he wanted to\ncommit. And that is commit e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290.\nYes, the beginning of history.\n\nI've heard that Linus is a very good developer. ;-)\n\n-- \nShawn.\n"},{"id":"35556","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0702270100360.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"3c6c07c20702261551u55ec2ea7mde4075b1c929cf87@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-02-27T00:02:53Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-27T00:02:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Mike Coleman wrote:\n\n> Does anyone recall when git first self-hosted? This doesn't seem to be \n> present on the GitHistory page on the wiki, and I'm not finding it \n> elsewhere.\n\nHey, how about adding a trivia page there, with the information you get \nhere?\n\n> I suppose this could mean different things, but roughly I'm curious \n> about the earliest point at which all further commits were \n> human-generated, in real time, as opposed to the machine-generated \n> commits of some robo-import script.\n\nThe initial commit was v0.99~954, and it was not yet generated with \ngit-commit, because it was not there:\n\n$ git show v0.99~954:\ntree v0.99~954:\n\nMakefile\nREADME\ncache.h\ncat-file.c\ncommit-tree.c\ninit-db.c\nread-cache.c\nread-tree.c\nshow-diff.c\nupdate-cache.c\nwrite-tree.c\n\nHth,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"35561","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0702261650120.12485@woody.linux-foundation.org","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"3c6c07c20702261551u55ec2ea7mde4075b1c929cf87@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2007-02-27T00:54:11Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-27T00:54:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Mike Coleman wrote:\n>\n> Does anyone recall when git first self-hosted? This doesn't seem to\n> be present on the GitHistory page on the wiki, and I'm not finding it\n> elsewhere.\n\nThe first commit was already self-hosted. It was done manually (write-tree \netc by hand), but yes, the first commit really is:\n\n\tThu Apr 7 15:13:13 2005 -0700\n\nand the second one (add copyright notices) was done a few minutes later.\n\nLater that same day I imported \"sparse\" into a git archive from BK (you \ncan get the sparse archive, and see the initial commit:\n\n\tcommit 3ece2ef7c0a3d5975f65aa09911e1944e4125c45\n\tAuthor: Linus Torvalds \n\tAuthorDate: Thu Mar 13 12:53:56 2003 -0700\n\tCommit: Linus Torvalds \n\tCommitDate: Thu Apr 7 20:59:14 2005 -0700\n\nnotice how the commit date is different from the author date - the \nauthor date was taken from the BK tree that I imported).\n\nThe third git commit is committing the changes to git to make that import \npossible (\"Thu Apr 7 21:03:28 2005 -0700\").\n\nSo git was self-hosting since April 7, 2005.\n\nNow, exactly when I started git development (ie how long it took before it \ngot to that self-hosting stage), I can't remember. I'd say about two \nweeks, probably.\n\n\t\tLinus\n"},{"id":"35570","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0702261722310.12485@woody.linux-foundation.org","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0702261650120.12485@woody.linux-foundation.org","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2007-02-27T01:58:57Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-27T01:58:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n> \n> The first commit was already self-hosted. It was done manually (write-tree \n> etc by hand), but yes, the first commit really is:\n> \n> \tThu Apr 7 15:13:13 2005 -0700\n> \n> and the second one (add copyright notices) was done a few minutes later.\n> \n> So git was self-hosting since April 7, 2005.\n> \n> Now, exactly when I started git development (ie how long it took before it \n> got to that self-hosting stage), I can't remember. I'd say about two \n> weeks, probably.\n\nActually, it must have been less than that.\n\nThe first version of git was just ~1300 lines of code, and I have reason \nto believe that I started it at or around April 3rd. The reason: I made \nthe last BK release on that day, and I also remember aiming for having \nsomething usable in two weeks. \n\nAnd hosting git itself was not that important for me - hosting the kernel \nwas. And the first kernel commit was April 16 (with the first merges being \na few days later). Which meshes with my \"two week goal\" recollection.\n\nNot that I'd normally be entirely sure I hit any time goals I set, but I \n*am* pretty sure that I decided that in order to be effective, I didn't \nwant to do kernel development at the same time as git development, so the \n\"April 3\" date of the 2.6.12-rc2 release is fairly significant.\n\n\t\t\tLinus\n"},{"id":"35576","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0702270113470.6485@iabervon.org","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0702261722310.12485@woody.linux-foundation.org","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Daniel Barkalow","fromEmail":"barkalow@iabervon.org","sentAt":"2007-02-27T06:54:33Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-27T06:54:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"barkalow@iabervon.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/55364219?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n\n> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n> > \n> > The first commit was already self-hosted. It was done manually (write-tree \n> > etc by hand), but yes, the first commit really is:\n> > \n> > \tThu Apr 7 15:13:13 2005 -0700\n> > \n> > and the second one (add copyright notices) was done a few minutes later.\n> > \n> > So git was self-hosting since April 7, 2005.\n> > \n> > Now, exactly when I started git development (ie how long it took before it \n> > got to that self-hosting stage), I can't remember. I'd say about two \n> > weeks, probably.\n> \n> Actually, it must have been less than that.\n> \n> The first version of git was just ~1300 lines of code, and I have reason \n> to believe that I started it at or around April 3rd. The reason: I made \n> the last BK release on that day, and I also remember aiming for having \n> something usable in two weeks. \n\nAs of April 3rd, you were looking at existing systems, rejecting all of \nthem aside from monotone, and finding monotone too slow.\n\nAccording to the first public mention of git \n(http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/8/9), you'd spent two days getting it to the \npoint where it was hosting itself and sparse (and doing nothing else), and \nit was ready for other people to start writing things. (That is to say, \nyour main task was finding a new SCM, and you were playing with monotone \nas the expected solution, but it was so slow you had time to write git \nwhile you were waiting for monotone to run)\n\n> And hosting git itself was not that important for me - hosting the kernel \n> was. And the first kernel commit was April 16 (with the first merges being \n> a few days later). Which meshes with my \"two week goal\" recollection.\n> \n> Not that I'd normally be entirely sure I hit any time goals I set, but I \n> *am* pretty sure that I decided that in order to be effective, I didn't \n> want to do kernel development at the same time as git development, so the \n> \"April 3\" date of the 2.6.12-rc2 release is fairly significant.\n\nYou did mention getting 2.6.12-rc2 done, and then spending the ensuing \ncalm time doing something about replacing BK, and it sounded like 2 weeks \nwas a time limit for getting something in place, even if it was only a \ntemporary solution. After two weeks, git was suitable for the immediate \ntask of applying patches from other people, and then people started \nfiguring out workflows around it.\n\n\t-Daniel\n*This .sig left intentionally blank*\n"},{"id":"35779","messageId":"3c6c07c20702272157l5ee9a8b7y218e86ecb079a9fc@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0702270100360.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Mike Coleman","fromEmail":"tutufan@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-02-28T05:57:45Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-28T05:57:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tutufan@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On 2/26/07, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hey, how about adding a trivia page there, with the information you get\n> here?\n\nI will add it, to GitTrivia or GitHistory. Thanks to everyone for the info.\n\nI'm giving a talk about revision control tomorrow, which is what\ninspired the question. I'll be saying that git is very cool. :-)\n\nLooking back at previous systems, I was surprised at how capable (if\nugly) SCCS appears to have been. (I got my start on RCS.) Did you\nknow it had an \"annotate\" option (a la 'cvs annotate')? I didn't.\n\nOn another topic, it might amuse you to know that there's yet another\n'git' floating around. It's part of a bioinformatics package called\nSEALS. Though it hasn't been maintained in several years, we have it\ninstalled at work.\n\nMike\n"},{"id":"35781","messageId":"46a038f90702272248m4b4af750y4069d726e6e7f6e@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"6983","inReplyTo":"3c6c07c20702272157l5ee9a8b7y218e86ecb079a9fc@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-02-28T06:48:47Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-28T06:48:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 2/28/07, Mike Coleman wrote:\n> On another topic, it might amuse you to know that there's yet another\n> 'git' floating around. It's part of a bioinformatics package called\n> SEALS. Though it hasn't been maintained in several years, we have it\n> installed at work.\n\nThere is also GNU Interactive Tools, and some fun flamewars about name\nclashes, package conflicts and more... See\n\n http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/13/110\n http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0508/7477.html\n\nfor the tip of the iceberg.\n\ncheers,\n\n\nmartin\n"}]}