5 ms·

I come across this attitude a lot. Usually my response is if you use something daily, and you know you lack the skills to use it effectively, why don't you imp

by lugged 5y ago

I come across this attitude a lot. Usually my response is if you use something daily, and you know you lack the skills to use it effectively, why don't you improve your knowledge and seek out training or education? Do you treat a new programming language or framework with the same disdain? I know I'm gonna get some hate for pointing this out but this same disdain is what causes things like the branchless workflow. A workflow that hamstrings yourself to git stash as a poor man's branch. I get it, I used that as crutch for years, then I spent some time learning git properly. Most people haven't even watched the one hour talk where Linus talks about the design and building of git. One hour might sound like a lot to understand why branching is so amazing, and why distributed source control is hard but it's a tool I've used for almost a decade and won't stop using for the next decade. I think it was worth it.

Ensorceled 5y ago
At one time I was an expert in 'C'. I was the goto guy at our company for porting and performance issues and was often just handed the entire project if it involved porting. I have no memory of any of that beyond the basics now. Git is like that. There is no way I will remember commands I only use once a quarter or so when something goes wrong.
- lugged 5y ago
  I don't know what to tell you, commit more code? Branch more? Work in teams? Maybe git isn't the right tool for you? I have a set of commands I use multiple times a day, for everything else there are manuals and docs to reference. Git branch, commit, rebase, merge, clone, check out, pull, push, submodule, remote, and maybe a couple more, are there specific commands you don't use daily? Other than remote and submodule I use all of those almost daily.
  - megameter 5y ago
    That's nice, but most of us here are version control consumers, not version control professionals. We need something that has very few knobs to turn because our job is focused around delivering value through other tasks. Git is highly professionalized. It has layers of modal state. That is built into the operating model. It is made for Linus Torvalds, a professional merger of code. If you are using all of those commands "almost daily", you are a professional code-merger too.
    - lugged 5y ago
      This is such a strange attitude to source control as a developer. It's literally the most important tool a developer will use second only to an editor. And again, maybe git is the wrong tool for you, that was kind of my point, use cvs or svn it's much closer to what you seem to want.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        If it was so easy, the decision of what SCM platform to use isn't part of the developer teams, rather IT.
      - olau 5y ago
        Some other things I rank above version control: Programming language compiler, runtime, etc. Email and similar communication tools, phone, chat, whatever. Web browser for documentation, Q&A, etc. Some sort of basic version control is definitely important.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    I was replying to this part of your comment: > Usually my response is if you use something daily, and you know you lack the skills to use it effectively, why don't you improve your knowledge and seek out training or education? Seeking out that training would be useless since I don't use git enough. > Maybe git isn't the right tool for you? Git is definitely the tool for me. It's better than any other available tool for my situation. Why the hell would I branch more? Just to get better at git? Sorry, I'm sorry that I work on a small team! Maybe I should go back to CVS? Stop gate keeping.
    - lugged 5y ago
      This is just retarded. You don't want branching and you still think git is the tool for you? Compared to say svn? Honestly, use svn, its the better tool for your use case. You don't have to use git. Don't gaslight me by saying you don't need gits main feature and then suggest I'm gstekeeping, I'm not, youre welcome to use git, just don't complain about your lack of ability to RTFM.
      - Ensorceled 5y ago
        Nice ableist slur, on brand. I use a modified gitflow. The article and this thread are about how when you get into trouble, git quickly becomes complicated. It’s not about branching being too hard or whatever you turned this conversation into in your head.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > Why the hell would I branch more? Just to get better at git? Sorry, I'm sorry that I work on a small team! Maybe I should go back to CVS? I have multiple branches on the go in a one-person project. I find that very useful. But if you don't, maybe you should go back to SVN? Using git without merging between branches seems like you're making your life complicated for no gain - like using a distributed system framework to run a single-node system.
      - Ensorceled 5y ago
        I have multiple branches, we use gitflow (well modified). This isn't about branching, it's about what happens in the edge cases and how difficult git is when things go wrong. The comment I'm replying to said "branch more" as if that would solve some kind of problem with edge case complexity.
- eric4smith 5y ago
  Bingo.
arxanas 5y ago
> I know I'm gonna get some hate for pointing this out but this same disdain is what causes things like the branchless workflow. A workflow that hamstrings yourself to git stash as a poor man's branch. FYI, the branchless workflow linked to in the post is really the opposite of this. It encourages making commits even more often than you would in the traditional branching workflow, and discourages using the staging area or stashes when commits would work fine.
- lugged 5y ago
  The problem with this is that eventually you need to branch, in that case, stash works well. But eventually you learn that branching is better and easier than stash almost 99 times out of 100.

by lugged 5y ago

Ensorceled 5y ago

At one time I was an expert in 'C'. I was the goto guy at our company for porting and performance issues and was often just handed the entire project if it involved porting. I have no memory of any of that beyond the basics now. Git is like that. There is no way I will remember commands I only use once a quarter or so when something goes wrong.

lugged 5y ago
I don't know what to tell you, commit more code? Branch more? Work in teams? Maybe git isn't the right tool for you? I have a set of commands I use multiple times a day, for everything else there are manuals and docs to reference. Git branch, commit, rebase, merge, clone, check out, pull, push, submodule, remote, and maybe a couple more, are there specific commands you don't use daily? Other than remote and submodule I use all of those almost daily.
- megameter 5y ago
  That's nice, but most of us here are version control consumers, not version control professionals. We need something that has very few knobs to turn because our job is focused around delivering value through other tasks. Git is highly professionalized. It has layers of modal state. That is built into the operating model. It is made for Linus Torvalds, a professional merger of code. If you are using all of those commands "almost daily", you are a professional code-merger too.
  - lugged 5y ago
    This is such a strange attitude to source control as a developer. It's literally the most important tool a developer will use second only to an editor. And again, maybe git is the wrong tool for you, that was kind of my point, use cvs or svn it's much closer to what you seem to want.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      If it was so easy, the decision of what SCM platform to use isn't part of the developer teams, rather IT.
    - olau 5y ago
      Some other things I rank above version control: Programming language compiler, runtime, etc. Email and similar communication tools, phone, chat, whatever. Web browser for documentation, Q&A, etc. Some sort of basic version control is definitely important.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I was replying to this part of your comment: > Usually my response is if you use something daily, and you know you lack the skills to use it effectively, why don't you improve your knowledge and seek out training or education? Seeking out that training would be useless since I don't use git enough. > Maybe git isn't the right tool for you? Git is definitely the tool for me. It's better than any other available tool for my situation. Why the hell would I branch more? Just to get better at git? Sorry, I'm sorry that I work on a small team! Maybe I should go back to CVS? Stop gate keeping.
  - lugged 5y ago
    This is just retarded. You don't want branching and you still think git is the tool for you? Compared to say svn? Honestly, use svn, its the better tool for your use case. You don't have to use git. Don't gaslight me by saying you don't need gits main feature and then suggest I'm gstekeeping, I'm not, youre welcome to use git, just don't complain about your lack of ability to RTFM.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      Nice ableist slur, on brand. I use a modified gitflow. The article and this thread are about how when you get into trouble, git quickly becomes complicated. It’s not about branching being too hard or whatever you turned this conversation into in your head.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > Why the hell would I branch more? Just to get better at git? Sorry, I'm sorry that I work on a small team! Maybe I should go back to CVS? I have multiple branches on the go in a one-person project. I find that very useful. But if you don't, maybe you should go back to SVN? Using git without merging between branches seems like you're making your life complicated for no gain - like using a distributed system framework to run a single-node system.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      I have multiple branches, we use gitflow (well modified). This isn't about branching, it's about what happens in the edge cases and how difficult git is when things go wrong. The comment I'm replying to said "branch more" as if that would solve some kind of problem with edge case complexity.
eric4smith 5y ago
Bingo.

arxanas 5y ago

> I know I'm gonna get some hate for pointing this out but this same disdain is what causes things like the branchless workflow. A workflow that hamstrings yourself to git stash as a poor man's branch. FYI, the branchless workflow linked to in the post is really the opposite of this. It encourages making commits even more often than you would in the traditional branching workflow, and discourages using the staging area or stashes when commits would work fine.

lugged 5y ago
The problem with this is that eventually you need to branch, in that case, stash works well. But eventually you learn that branching is better and easier than stash almost 99 times out of 100.