4 ms·

Its interesting how these threads about Git simultaneously have (a) People arguing git is fine, and shouldn't be simplified (b) People arguing about the right

Its interesting how these threads about Git simultaneously have (a) People arguing git is fine, and shouldn't be simplified (b) People arguing about the right way to use git, and flame wars about best git workflows I mean most people simply see (b) and conclude "this is a huge hassle, I don't want to annoy some git-workflow-purist, I'm just going to walk on eggshells on this tool and hope I don't break anything" It's as much a social problem around conventions, and lack of opinions in the tool itself, then anything about the underlying technology (which is rock solid IMO)

indymike 4y ago
I remember when git was new, and the subversion crowd didn't jump on. Same discussion, different subjects. Git is/was awesome... but there is certainly room for improvement.
- juped 4y ago
  Subversion? You mean that unimpressive flash-in-the-pan CVS clone?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    As I recall, the Big Deal with CVS-to-SVN migration was that many teams learned to creatively exploit the fact that CVS does versioning on a file-by-file basis. As late as 2008, I had to work in an environment where checking out different versions for different parts of the company's CVS monorepo was required to get anything to build.
0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
I would argue that camp a) is more diehard than your description. Some people will argue to their death how perfect a tool git is and it would be impossible to operate without a tool that exposed so much low level power. I use git begrudgingly because that’s where the world is, but I long for an improvement in this space.
tikhonj 4y ago
I dunno, there's a lot of value in having a tool that's flexible and lets you work the way you want—even if that fundamentally means there is no one blessed way to do things. Git has a lot of incidental complexity and unforced design problems, but the fact that it's inherently flexible is not one.
MBCook 4y ago
You missed my problem with these threads. (c) Git is a disaster that has destroyed source control for 15+ years and the industry is unable to recover from due to Stockholm syndrome It’s impossible to discuss source control without people coming out of the woodwork to shit on git. It doesn’t work right. It’s too hard. SVN was better. Mercurial should have won. Blah blah blah. Git isn’t perfect. And the command line has improved (I don’t care much, I use a GUI). But the number of people who seem to insist that because it doesn’t work for them or they don’t personally like it it’s horrible and everyone should abandon it is crazy. And it makes trying to read/participate in discussions like this painful.
- matwood 4y ago
  I agree. I think git is fine, but also would like improvements. I started with CVS and VSS (well really started with copying files to dir_bak heh), then SVN and git. Yelling across the office to tell someone to checkin a file so I could make an edit seems so quaint. VSS had a fun bug that if you ran out of disk space, it would destroy the entire repository - yup. Is git sometimes obtuse? Sure, but it's fast and incredibly powerful. My everyday commands are easy to use, and if I need something special I go to the documentation - just like any other SCM.
aliqot 4y ago
obtuse software makes obtuse experts who hate obtuse newbies.

indymike 4y ago

I remember when git was new, and the subversion crowd didn't jump on. Same discussion, different subjects. Git is/was awesome... but there is certainly room for improvement.

juped 4y ago
Subversion? You mean that unimpressive flash-in-the-pan CVS clone?
- int_19h 4y ago
  As I recall, the Big Deal with CVS-to-SVN migration was that many teams learned to creatively exploit the fact that CVS does versioning on a file-by-file basis. As late as 2008, I had to work in an environment where checking out different versions for different parts of the company's CVS monorepo was required to get anything to build.

0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago

I would argue that camp a) is more diehard than your description. Some people will argue to their death how perfect a tool git is and it would be impossible to operate without a tool that exposed so much low level power. I use git begrudgingly because that’s where the world is, but I long for an improvement in this space.

tikhonj 4y ago

I dunno, there's a lot of value in having a tool that's flexible and lets you work the way you want—even if that fundamentally means there is no one blessed way to do things. Git has a lot of incidental complexity and unforced design problems, but the fact that it's inherently flexible is not one.

MBCook 4y ago

You missed my problem with these threads. (c) Git is a disaster that has destroyed source control for 15+ years and the industry is unable to recover from due to Stockholm syndrome It’s impossible to discuss source control without people coming out of the woodwork to shit on git. It doesn’t work right. It’s too hard. SVN was better. Mercurial should have won. Blah blah blah. Git isn’t perfect. And the command line has improved (I don’t care much, I use a GUI). But the number of people who seem to insist that because it doesn’t work for them or they don’t personally like it it’s horrible and everyone should abandon it is crazy. And it makes trying to read/participate in discussions like this painful.

matwood 4y ago
I agree. I think git is fine, but also would like improvements. I started with CVS and VSS (well really started with copying files to dir_bak heh), then SVN and git. Yelling across the office to tell someone to checkin a file so I could make an edit seems so quaint. VSS had a fun bug that if you ran out of disk space, it would destroy the entire repository - yup. Is git sometimes obtuse? Sure, but it's fast and incredibly powerful. My everyday commands are easy to use, and if I need something special I go to the documentation - just like any other SCM.

aliqot 4y ago

obtuse software makes obtuse experts who hate obtuse newbies.