5 ms·

They're complaining about git and the very first thing they discuss is how git interacts with a completely separate piece of software. Push doesn't have to be t

They're complaining about git and the very first thing they discuss is how git interacts with a completely separate piece of software. Push doesn't have to be to Github, it can also mean sending an email. Obviously you can't undo that. The Github-first problem is viewing git merely as an interface to Github, where the home of the work is and where all things are collected and operated on. From this it follows that git push is a fundamental operation like add or commit. And from this follow complaints that git commit isn't something that sends your changes to the One True Repo. If you push then you should give up any expectation of control or ownership over the code that's sent over the communications protocol of choice. Purging a file is nice for you but in action would be a force-pushed rebase that you have to ask people very nicely to use instead of the initial branch. Controlling what branch other people use is completely out of scope for a local VCS. The blog continues on to say that the distributed nature gets in the way of the mental model.: >they have never even considered that there’s such a thing, because why would they? A branch is just a single concept in our head that is made complicated by the inherent distributed nature of Git. And that's just the wrong model to have, inspired by understanding git through the lens of Github. If you're using git and you're unaware that you're operating on your local copy, not a shared workspace, then you can't place much stock in whatever mental model you come up with.

jrochkind1 6y ago
OK, I understand you think the way most actual use of git I have observed takes place is "the wrong model to have". That is an opinion you can have, and you can try to convince people of it; to be succesful at doing that, you probably want to understand what motivations and pressures lead to this style of use in the first place; why do you think so many (from my view, the majority of git users), choose to use git in this "wrong" way? It still has nothing to do with github specifically. It is also true of people using gitlab. Before github existed, I (and many other teams I know) used a variety of other ways of hosting a remote git server shared by the team, including various open source software with web UI, as well as no web UI at all, remote git accessed via ssh (`ssh:` git urls) with no other UI. The issue applies to all of them. And again most teams I knew were doing this before github existed. It applies to teams using gitlab or bitbucket or other in similar ways now too. I still don't thinkit makes sense to blame github specifically , as I believe you are doing, for the way most teams choose to use git -- since before github existed, and still now using a variety of software choices in addition to github.
- rakoo 6y ago
  It's not specifically github, but I believe this wrong mental model was greatly popularized by it. Until GitHub rose to fame a project had reasonable chances to pick mercurial, or sometimes SVN; today the default is git on GitHub. That is the issue: when you choose a tool not because it's the best at what you want to do, but for other (very good) reasons: it's popular so you'll find help easily, more people will interact with you, etc... So, no, GitHub didn't create this, but it made it default
jcelerier 6y ago
> Obviously you can't undo that. I'd wager I press the "undo" button in gmail at least 3/4 times per week
- atq2119 6y ago
  This only works because you can configure gmail to send email on a timer instead of immediately. Also, may I kindly suggest that you aren't putting enough thought into your emails? That may be fine for single-recipient emails (depending on your environment), but when your email is received by many people it's an unkind act that shows disregard for the recipient's time and attention.
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    > but when your email is received by many people it's an unkind act that shows disregard for the recipient's time and attention. most of my e-mail are just chat conversations with a title
- ric2b 6y ago
  That's because you have a 30s timer that doesn't actually send anything until it counts to 0. After it actually sends the e-mail, there's no going back.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    And for like a decade this was only available under Gmail Labs, and without it enabled gmail would send immediately and couldn't "undo" the send.
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    sure, but that 30s timer is an incredibly useful feature, when you misclick, when your cat walks on your keyboard, when you remember that you forgot $RANDOM_THING, etc etc
    - ric2b 6y ago

jrochkind1 6y ago

OK, I understand you think the way most actual use of git I have observed takes place is "the wrong model to have". That is an opinion you can have, and you can try to convince people of it; to be succesful at doing that, you probably want to understand what motivations and pressures lead to this style of use in the first place; why do you think so many (from my view, the majority of git users), choose to use git in this "wrong" way? It still has nothing to do with github specifically. It is also true of people using gitlab. Before github existed, I (and many other teams I know) used a variety of other ways of hosting a remote git server shared by the team, including various open source software with web UI, as well as no web UI at all, remote git accessed via ssh (`ssh:` git urls) with no other UI. The issue applies to all of them. And again most teams I knew were doing this before github existed. It applies to teams using gitlab or bitbucket or other in similar ways now too. I still don't thinkit makes sense to blame github specifically , as I believe you are doing, for the way most teams choose to use git -- since before github existed, and still now using a variety of software choices in addition to github.

rakoo 6y ago
It's not specifically github, but I believe this wrong mental model was greatly popularized by it. Until GitHub rose to fame a project had reasonable chances to pick mercurial, or sometimes SVN; today the default is git on GitHub. That is the issue: when you choose a tool not because it's the best at what you want to do, but for other (very good) reasons: it's popular so you'll find help easily, more people will interact with you, etc... So, no, GitHub didn't create this, but it made it default

jcelerier 6y ago

> Obviously you can't undo that. I'd wager I press the "undo" button in gmail at least 3/4 times per week

atq2119 6y ago
This only works because you can configure gmail to send email on a timer instead of immediately. Also, may I kindly suggest that you aren't putting enough thought into your emails? That may be fine for single-recipient emails (depending on your environment), but when your email is received by many people it's an unkind act that shows disregard for the recipient's time and attention.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > but when your email is received by many people it's an unkind act that shows disregard for the recipient's time and attention. most of my e-mail are just chat conversations with a title
ric2b 6y ago
That's because you have a 30s timer that doesn't actually send anything until it counts to 0. After it actually sends the e-mail, there's no going back.
- Izkata 6y ago
  And for like a decade this was only available under Gmail Labs, and without it enabled gmail would send immediately and couldn't "undo" the send.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  sure, but that 30s timer is an incredibly useful feature, when you misclick, when your cat walks on your keyboard, when you remember that you forgot $RANDOM_THING, etc etc
  - ric2b 6y ago