7 ms·
> the UX is a steaming pile of legacy cruft This is due to the lack of a solid theory to match the intuition. The "git way" of trying to match each use case is
by pmeunier 6y ago
> the UX is a steaming pile of legacy cruft
This is due to the lack of a solid theory to match the intuition. The "git way" of trying to match each use case is to add a new command for each new use case.
I don't think you can fix "just the UX" without fixing the underlying algorithms.
- alkonaut 6y agoAs an example of the UX issue: just making command line switches consistent (e.g. delete always being the same switch) would be a very easy fix and a UX win, and it's only compatibility holding that back.
- rkangel 6y ago> The "git way" of trying to match each use case is to add a new command for each new use case. To me, git's problem is the exact opposite - the commands are based on how the underlying technology works, not on the use case for the user. The best example is 'reset'. I understand git's internals reasonably well so I know the reason why, but it's not obvious that you need the same command to "un-add" a file, or to wind history back two commits.