4 ms·
I'm used to the command line interfaces. It is not that I need a GUI tool. I do not. It's just that, after a year, I'm still not 100% sure that I understand wha
by maurycy 17y ago
I'm used to the command line interfaces. It is not that I need a GUI tool. I do not. It's just that, after a year, I'm still not 100% sure that I understand what every git command does. There's still something under the hoods going on that I do not trust. I do not want to use a GUI interface, which I trust even less.
Of course, you can either ask specific questions what causes me problems and answer them, or just reply me that powerful tool has a steep learning curve.
I reject this notion, though. Perforce, Darcs and Bazaar are similarly powerful tools, with their own trade-offs. None gave me so much headache initially, and relatively quickly I've got some level of comfort with them.
As for lack of "git library", I think you nailed it, if it's still true. +1. Lack of proper encapsulation is one of the biggest issues in the Linux tools' world. Most of the tools is "as is", and the only way to interact with them is the command line.
I know that this is a part of the Unix philosophy. It frequently, though, generates similar problems. The idea is excellent, yet the interface is horrible. It shouldn't be the case. Why give up excellent, already written, code and idea, because of something so trivial as interface?
It's especially visible in the world of package management software. Nearly all come as a package: their own format, their own repos, their own scripts, and the command-line interface. I still don't understand why there's neither single packages' format, nor scripts cannot be reused, and everyone reinvents the wheel on daily basis.
By the way, thanks for not downvoting me. I expected a different outcome.
- pyre 17y ago> It's especially visible in the world of package management software. Nearly all come as a package: their own format, their own repos, their own scripts, and the command-line interface. I still don't understand why there's neither single packages' format, nor scripts cannot be reused, and everyone reinvents the wheel on daily basis. People aren't 'reinventing' the wheel constantly. There are only two major package management structures (deb/rpm) and there are even tools to translate between them, IIRC. Why 'their own repos?' Because if they make design decisions that are incompatible with the current repository, they have to host their own. It's not like Ubuntu and Debian are mutually exclusive as far as repositories go. Ubuntu pulls over a 'snapshot' of Debian's unstable repository, applying patches where they need to and/or see fit. There are probably plenty of packages in Ubuntu that are unchanged from what they were in the Debian Unstable repository. I'm sure it's the same with Ubuntu-based distros like Mint. They probably pull over a snapshot of the Ubuntu repos, make their modifications and it becomes their next revision of Mint. > Bazaar Bzr has its own set of headaches. I haven't used it extensively, but IIRC they use revision numbers on commits that are only valid locally, which I think is a big no-no. Especially with people coming from other version control systems that use the revision number as the canonical pointer to a specific revision.