3 ms·

The language is part of the reason its so confusing. Why is called a commit? Makes no sense and is confusing. The commands should be obvious by looking at it.

The language is part of the reason its so confusing. Why is called a commit? Makes no sense and is confusing. The commands should be obvious by looking at it. Why does someone make a pull request? It seems backwards as people push to a repository. And then there is all the flags. Why in 2018 are we not writing full words? Linus is a genius, but he makes things that works for him and without much consideration for others. This is just human nature I think.

jnurmine 8y ago
The way I see it the Git nomenclature makes much sense. You "push" to a repository, if it is yours, but you cannot just push to the repositories of others. You make a "pull request" for others to fetch changes from you. Commit is a "commit" because you "commit a change" as in make something new which differs from the previous state. "Rebase" just puts your commits on top of the other branch, using the other branch as a "base". (It helps to think of the graph structure) "Branch" is a branch because what you have is a kind of tree of commits, often more or less a straight line if you've done it right (IMO), and when you make something to work with you deviate from this other history of commits by branching off from it. I mean it is rather standard terminology, and most importantly, it makes sense. Don't get me started with e.g. Clearcase which frankly makes no sense and should be killed with atomic weapons from low Earth orbit (or any orbit as long as it does the job), just to be sure. As for hard to use, I never understood this either... I usually use a handful of commands and get things done just fine. If I ever feel like absolutely having to use some kind exotic merge with --onto and looking up octopus merges and whatnot I am probably doing something wrong. There are plenty of good Git resources available, for example https://git-scm.com/ https://git-scm.com/

jnurmine 8y ago

The way I see it the Git nomenclature makes much sense. You "push" to a repository, if it is yours, but you cannot just push to the repositories of others. You make a "pull request" for others to fetch changes from you. Commit is a "commit" because you "commit a change" as in make something new which differs from the previous state. "Rebase" just puts your commits on top of the other branch, using the other branch as a "base". (It helps to think of the graph structure) "Branch" is a branch because what you have is a kind of tree of commits, often more or less a straight line if you've done it right (IMO), and when you make something to work with you deviate from this other history of commits by branching off from it. I mean it is rather standard terminology, and most importantly, it makes sense. Don't get me started with e.g. Clearcase which frankly makes no sense and should be killed with atomic weapons from low Earth orbit (or any orbit as long as it does the job), just to be sure. As for hard to use, I never understood this either... I usually use a handful of commands and get things done just fine. If I ever feel like absolutely having to use some kind exotic merge with --onto and looking up octopus merges and whatnot I am probably doing something wrong. There are plenty of good Git resources available, for example https://git-scm.com/ https://git-scm.com/