> At a conceptual level, so much of the more esoteric parts of git makes little to no sense. I see git as a reluctant marriage between two disparate halves: th

> At a conceptual level, so much of the more esoteric parts of git makes little to no sense. I see git as a reluctant marriage between two disparate halves: the CLI and the ODS (on-disk structure). There might be technical reasons (and baggage) behind why the ODS is the way it is, but I don't see why the CLI is the way it is. Outside of the time I spent, some years back, writing code to verify the porting of some mercurial repositories to git, I have no desire to look at the internals of git. Last year, I wrote a tool to query my backups stored by a software that adopted some of its ideas from git,[1] and it was not a pleasant experience. Coincidentally, that software too is just as bad at user interfaces as git is. [1] https://www.arqbackup.com/arq_data_format.txt https://www.arqbackup.com/arq_data_format.txt