4 ms·

If I created my own git implementation with the exact same CLI, but under the hood I didn't use a "pointer", but instead used the "value", would this be more in

If I created my own git implementation with the exact same CLI, but under the hood I didn't use a "pointer", but instead used the "value", would this be more intuitive to you? One problem I'm trying to express with that question is: You say it's unintuitive, but when asked why you refer to a very low level technical detail. My suspicion is that people find git branches unintuitive, and thus they think something more intuitive must exist. They have vague ideas about what "more intuitive" might mean, usually it means "just do what I want in this one situation I'm currently facing". My theory is that, if pressed, nobody can fully define a behavior for branches that is more intuitive than the current git implementation.

Espressosaurus 3y ago
Well, you're still using the same CLI which is part of the problem. Git's CLI reflects its patched-together-hacked-executable history. It shouldn't be controversial to say the porcelain can and should be much more straightforward to use. DVCS concepts like the DAG and where you want to apply diffs are complicated the first time around, but after you get the concepts it should be easy to use, not difficult. Mercurial's branches are a better match for how I've seen branches use in practice. Tags are essentially the same between both. Evolve's hidden commits make it easier to recover lost data than Git's reflog, though the underlying implementation not permitting garbage collection kind of sucks.