4 ms·

> I am not paid to know GIT inside out. I am paid to deliver and fix code and to not step on other people's feet. Your argument is still the same as the other

by web007 5y ago

> I am not paid to know GIT inside out. I am paid to deliver and fix code and to not step on other people's feet. Your argument is still the same as the other git detractors, and is still wrong. It _is_ part of your job, it _is_ part of delivering and fixing code. It's the same as anything else you're using. It may be a larger surface area that you're exposed to, but it's no different from CI/CD, build systems or something like a package manager. You don't need to understand how pip or npm or maven works to deliver software effectively, but if you get into trouble you have no alternative to rm-rf. > As if I care what an index, staging area, reflog etc. are. I don't. If you don't want to learn it then stop complaining about how difficult it is to use. That's your problem, not git's. All of those things are important to the power of git. If you don't want / refuse to learn about them then you're trying to build your software with a car stuck in first gear and complaining about how slow it is. STFU and RTFM. None of this detracts from your final point, which is valid! Just because the UX is mediocre (at best) doesn't mean you can't learn it.

leokennis 5y ago
The issue here is GIT is way more complicated to learn, because it has 10.000 options that might do what you want to do or do something else entirely. Imagine your deployment pipeline required you to manually craft TCP packages to send to your machines to deploy code...would you still say "it _is_ part of your job, it _is_ part of delivering and fixing code", or would you say "that is stupid"? With GIT, you are spending more time on learning and battling the tooling required to deliver code, than actually writing and testing the code.
- web007 5y ago
  Imagine git required you to manually craft TCP packets... That's what you're comparing to. You're doing it really really wrong if you spend more time learning git than writing your code. Even with its bad UX it's just not that hard.

by web007 5y ago

leokennis 5y ago

The issue here is GIT is way more complicated to learn, because it has 10.000 options that might do what you want to do or do something else entirely. Imagine your deployment pipeline required you to manually craft TCP packages to send to your machines to deploy code...would you still say "it _is_ part of your job, it _is_ part of delivering and fixing code", or would you say "that is stupid"? With GIT, you are spending more time on learning and battling the tooling required to deliver code, than actually writing and testing the code.

web007 5y ago
Imagine git required you to manually craft TCP packets... That's what you're comparing to. You're doing it really really wrong if you spend more time learning git than writing your code. Even with its bad UX it's just not that hard.