3 ms·

You're confused because you're treating the repo server as special. Git doesn't do special. All branches, on all machines, are just branches. "main" on your de

You're confused because you're treating the repo server as special. Git doesn't do special. All branches, on all machines, are just branches. "main" on your device and "origin/main" (main on the machine you called "origin"), are two different branches. They don't need to share a name, you can just as easily set your local "main" to have "origin/Release" as its upstream. The name "main" isn't special. You can name your branches anything you desire. If you want to lock yourself out from controlling your own code, that's a customization for you to make. To git, there's no difference between committing to "main","feature111", or anything else. "origin" isn't special, either: you can have many different repo servers hosting different branches. Or maybe you don't have a repo server at all, and you just have all your fellow devs machines and you coordinate via email. While being perhaps a bit un-opinionated, it also makes Git conceptually extremely consistent, and thus simple.

appplication 3y ago
I certainly understand the abstraction and how to use git in this sense. The foundation of my above opinion is that I don’t think this is a great idea that’s well applied to modern development. Is it elegant that the same version control system can be used whether you have a remote server or you just coordinate over email? It certainly is! Is it necessary to have this level of generality and lack of opinions when 95% of users just want to do the same basic flow (and it does involve a server of some kind)? I don’t really think so, which is why I think there is so much confusion around really basic git functionality. We live in a world where git is philosophically more like Perl than python, and I think that it’s not unreasonable to think that it’s possible that if we flipped that, then that might actually be a good thing.
- ylyn 3y ago
  Then write your own wrapper on top of Git.
  - TeeMassive 3y ago
    Lazy Git ftw

appplication 3y ago

I certainly understand the abstraction and how to use git in this sense. The foundation of my above opinion is that I don’t think this is a great idea that’s well applied to modern development. Is it elegant that the same version control system can be used whether you have a remote server or you just coordinate over email? It certainly is! Is it necessary to have this level of generality and lack of opinions when 95% of users just want to do the same basic flow (and it does involve a server of some kind)? I don’t really think so, which is why I think there is so much confusion around really basic git functionality. We live in a world where git is philosophically more like Perl than python, and I think that it’s not unreasonable to think that it’s possible that if we flipped that, then that might actually be a good thing.

ylyn 3y ago
Then write your own wrapper on top of Git.
- TeeMassive 3y ago
  Lazy Git ftw