4 ms·
Discussions on improving git tend to be dominated by people who not only don't grok git but don't actually grok the problems inherent with distributed code deve
by offices 3y ago
Discussions on improving git tend to be dominated by people who not only don't grok git but don't actually grok the problems inherent with distributed code development and want it to be little more than dropbox for github. Once you filter out these people, a good chunk of the remainders are people asking for UI changes that already exist but they didn't bother to learn.
Catering to these people means attempts at this problem usually punish power users by removing useful things like staging or a distinction between commit and push.
- valty 3y ago> Discussions on improving git I'm advocating for a replacement...and why it's so difficult. > distributed code development Code development is no longer distributed. It's centralized in Github/Gitlab for about 99% of cases. And everyone is always connected in real-time to a central server...and also to all other contributors. These possibilities are so far from the reality of when Git was created. > staging or a distinction between commit and push This is trivial to handle.
- yencabulator 3y agoEven outside of the distributed aspect, discussions on improving git tend to be started by people who have never felt the need to express `HEAD~10` or `origin/main...main`, and.. I just don't have much sympathy for the naivety left in me. It would be neat to have a GUI rebase -i style "commit reorganizer" that let you visually reorder & drag commits between branches etc. But that'd just be an app calling git, and once you're experienced enough write it, you no longer really need it. So nobody does.