4 ms·
Your argument would be better received sans-ridicule. I think the OP's point was that Garret hides a lot of features that are built into git and then attempts
by jacobsimeon 11y ago
Your argument would be better received sans-ridicule.
I think the OP's point was that Garret hides a lot of features that are built into git and then attempts to paper over that fact by re-implemting those features within its own system.
In your first paragraph, you defend Garrit's rebasing procedure and then you implicitly accuse the OP of not being willing to "suck it up and learn something new".
Why should we learn a new tool that makes (arguably poor) attempts at re-implementing the features of a tool that we already know and love?
- ngrilly 11y agoThere's nothing ridiculous in xyzzy_plugh's argument. The discussed tool is not "Garret" or "Garrit", it's Gerrit, which makes me wonder if you used it before commenting. As far as I know, Gerrit doesn't reimplement git's features. Rebasing is done using git rebase. Gerrit is a system for code review, just like GitHub's PR, but with a different approach.
- jacobsimeon 11y ago"Look at this guy mispelled the name of something. He must not know how to identify ridicule"