2 ms·
" there are several distinct things they could actually want to be doing" Yes - I get that - but this is my point. It's such a complicated tool (or rather, sp
by jariel 6y ago
" there are several distinct things they could actually want to be doing"
Yes - I get that - but this is my point.
It's such a complicated tool (or rather, specifics are not obvious) that people don't even know how to ask questions.
This is part of my point.
Ambiguous questions, ambiguous answers, a real propensity for people to be giving really bad answers.
This is endemic with Git, more so than I've seen with anything else.
I sometimes wonder if Git should should actually be used with some kind of visual representation as a default standard - and that our propensity for 'command line interface' as the de-facto means of real interface with computers may not be appropriate to communicating 'what is going on'.
Much like people fuss desperately over road signs, human factors in automobiles ... perhaps we should be thinking in these terms much more with this tool.
- rcxdude 6y agoI agree on the GUI front: git is a lot more comprehensible when you have a graphic representation of the commit graph at all times. This is my default way of interacting with git: even if I'm using the CLI to mutate the repository, I have a GUI open to view the repo.