3 ms·

Part of the fault lies with the documentation, and with the way git communicates with the user. For example when I was learning how to use it I routinely had t

by na85 11y ago

Part of the fault lies with the documentation, and with the way git communicates with the user. For example when I was learning how to use it I routinely had to Google for many tens of minutes to answer questions such as: What the fuck is "fast forward" and why is git displaying that message? What are "refs" and why would I want to update them? What is HEAD? Why isn't it named something more intuitive? Etc. Why did I have to Google around for it? Because the documentation didn't actually answer my questions. It's all compounded by the way the documentation is written: namely, from the perspective of the user who is intricately familiar with how git works. You have to remember the silly and needlessly obtuse names for everything. Why is there no "git-undo-commit"? What the fuck does rebase do? Bisect? I realized writing this that even though I have undone commits in the past, I don't actually know how to do it. I just Google it every time. It has the advantageous position of being better for certain workflows than CVS or mercurial perhaps, but frankly git is just not a very good piece of software.

bubuga 11y ago
> Etc. Why did I have to Google around for it? Googling for something is more convenient than going through the man pages, and Google is awesome at providing you with the best content associated with your query. The highest voted question regarding git, «how do you undo the last commit», is the very first example listed in git's man page on git commit. Convenience always trumps availability.
collyw 11y ago
The problem to me seem to be that Git is too powerful. It has many features built in and my guess is that the average dev uses a tiny fraction of them. https://xkcd.com/1597/ https://xkcd.com/1597/ The XKCD comic is true, because for most people downloading a fresh copy is far easier than working out how to use git properly.
- na85 11y ago
  >because for most people downloading a fresh copy is far easier than working out how to use git properly. A true and stinging indictment of git's poor ui/ux
- bubuga 11y ago
  > The problem to me seem to be that Git is too powerful. It has many features built in and my guess is that the average dev uses a tiny fraction of them. I don't understand why that is supposed to be considered a problem. Everyone has their personal itch, and scratching that itch is more than enough to actually do your work. No one needs to memorize a whole dictionary before getting to speak with someone. > The XKCD comic is true, because for most people downloading a fresh copy is far easier than working out how to use git properly. If a local repository is broken, would it be better to: a) spend hours trying to debug it, pinpoint the problem, come up with a solution, pray it doesn't affect remote repos or b) download another copy?
  - collyw 11y ago
    Depends on the circumstances. Need a fix in the next hour option a) You are going to be working with a large team on a long term project, no deadlines are immediately pressing option b)

by na85 11y ago

bubuga 11y ago

> Etc. Why did I have to Google around for it? Googling for something is more convenient than going through the man pages, and Google is awesome at providing you with the best content associated with your query. The highest voted question regarding git, «how do you undo the last commit», is the very first example listed in git's man page on git commit. Convenience always trumps availability.

collyw 11y ago

The problem to me seem to be that Git is too powerful. It has many features built in and my guess is that the average dev uses a tiny fraction of them. https://xkcd.com/1597/ https://xkcd.com/1597/ The XKCD comic is true, because for most people downloading a fresh copy is far easier than working out how to use git properly.

na85 11y ago
>because for most people downloading a fresh copy is far easier than working out how to use git properly. A true and stinging indictment of git's poor ui/ux
bubuga 11y ago
> The problem to me seem to be that Git is too powerful. It has many features built in and my guess is that the average dev uses a tiny fraction of them. I don't understand why that is supposed to be considered a problem. Everyone has their personal itch, and scratching that itch is more than enough to actually do your work. No one needs to memorize a whole dictionary before getting to speak with someone. > The XKCD comic is true, because for most people downloading a fresh copy is far easier than working out how to use git properly. If a local repository is broken, would it be better to: a) spend hours trying to debug it, pinpoint the problem, come up with a solution, pray it doesn't affect remote repos or b) download another copy?
- collyw 11y ago
  Depends on the circumstances. Need a fix in the next hour option a) You are going to be working with a large team on a long term project, no deadlines are immediately pressing option b)