4 ms·
Well that and out of the box git isn't very user friendly, even for developers who are used to dealing with command line tools. To this day in my experience mos
by simias 6y ago
Well that and out of the box git isn't very user friendly, even for developers who are used to dealing with command line tools. To this day in my experience most devs have a relatively shallow understanding of git and often need assistance for anything more complex than commit and push. I can't count the number of times I've had to assist a colleague for what ended up being a relatively simple merge.
I think you'd need an extremely good GUI if you wanted to market git to the masses.
- sammorrowdrums 6y agoHahaha, watch as colleagues stare blankly when you ask them to look at the reflog after botching a rebase and force pushing... and loads of other tools like bisect and blame heavily under-utilised, custom git hooks... The list of under-utilised git commands is long, and while perhaps a sign of a poor UX, if you use the features it really is rare that you are surprised or that you cannot return a repo to a good state, regardless of what you do.
- simias 6y agoI do think that git's UI is a good case study on how not to design a command line interface. It's improved over the years but I remember that a decade ago the contrast was stark if you compared, say, mercurial to git. Git always felt more like you were exposed a raw low level API on the command line with a few shell macros on top to make it a bit more palatable which is effectively what it was for a long time. I suppose it fits well within the unix philosophy of clunky but very flexible and not very opinionated tools.