5 ms·

So multiple people did a git reset --hard origin/master and nobody complained or checked what and why this was done? That's not "one data scientist with the wro

So multiple people did a git reset --hard origin/master and nobody complained or checked what and why this was done? That's not "one data scientist with the wrong command" but the whole team that fucked up hard IMHO.

lonelyasacloud 3y ago
> but the whole team that fucked up hard IMHO. Multiple individuals with similar problems would tend to imply systematic inadequate training. Or the enterprise concerned adopting an inappropriately complex system for its intended userbase.
- willy_k 3y ago
  Or, git is both very complex and very useful, and a large portion of its users have a poor understanding of git but enough for it to be a useful tool. If you want to do source control (which you do), then you’re investing time into learning git and/or fixing git, or maybe using a project like this.
  - keerthiko 3y ago
    You literally just said what GP said in different words, but prefaced it with "Or" as if it's a disagreement. What you said boils down to "inadequate training".
    - willy_k 3y ago
      We both agree that they didn’t know the tool, but GP seems to blame them for deciding to use the tool without training. I was more or less defending their choice to use git, while also acknowledging the potential of a tool like Diversion. My interpretation of GP was that it doubled down on git, while claiming that anyone using git without understanding it is “doing it wrong”, which I agree with in principle but not in practice, as I argued in my initial comment.
NateEag 3y ago
And the tool made a screwup that hard not only possible, but very difficult for the victims to recover from. Doesn't say a lot for git's usability.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  They used --force which is usually the flag to say: Here there be dragon. Be careful.
  - mbreese 3y ago
    Yeah, I can’t see how use of a —-force flag by people who didn’t know what they were doing is enough of a reason to switch to a different VCS (let alone write one). The issue was people using a tool in a way that they shouldn’t have. Which isn’t a technical problem, but a training problem. You can’t fix people problems with technology, so I’m sure there will be other footguns in this new system that someone else will figure out how to almost lose data. Git is great in that it is flexible and powerful. But that power leaves some tools open to people who don’t know what they are doing… that’s the trade off. (Now something that better handles non-code assets and large data files, I’d be much more willing to listen to that pitch.)
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  A couple of thoughts about this: One is that the possibility of overwriting history / etc is a really powerful and useful feature, but one that should only be used with some consideration, hence being gated behind the scary '--force'. The fact that git provides one the ability to discard and overwrite commits for a ref shouldn't be an endorsement of doing so freely. I'm glad git has this capability though and any "git alternative" would be all the worse if it didn't provide it, IMO. Two is that if the concern is git's usability - i.e. the "problem" here is that it's too "easy" for users to do destructive actions accidentally - well, there are ways to solve that other than to reinvent all of git. There are plenty of alternative git UIs already, and an alternative UI is a great way to be "wire compatible" for existing users but still help protect those novice users from footguns.
swells34 3y ago
I think you just sold their pitch with this comment... I, like many many people here, have done quite a bit of product design. What do you call it when a bunch of people use your product, and it breaks for several of them? That generally indicates your product is weak, or has a very rough UI.
- MrDarcy 3y ago
  The pitch simply wasn’t true. Data was not destroyed and was restored hours later.
  - swells34 3y ago
    It's a pitch. The story has obviously been embellished and polished and condensed, ready public consumption. Being pedantic against it is not productive.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      If the pitch is dishonest, why would I ever trust them with something as vital as my VCS? (And yes, "embellished" means dishonest)
    - spiderice 3y ago
      That's a creative way to defend a dishonest pitch
    - MrDarcy 3y ago
      Politely disagree. It’s productive because hopefully future teams who launch on HN ask each other, “Is what we’re saying true?” during all those polishing and condensing sessions. If they don’t, the risk is crossing a line that damages the reputation of the team and undermines months if not years of hard work.
    - water-your-self 3y ago
      This is not a pedantic criticism.
  - 3y ago

lonelyasacloud 3y ago

> but the whole team that fucked up hard IMHO. Multiple individuals with similar problems would tend to imply systematic inadequate training. Or the enterprise concerned adopting an inappropriately complex system for its intended userbase.

willy_k 3y ago
Or, git is both very complex and very useful, and a large portion of its users have a poor understanding of git but enough for it to be a useful tool. If you want to do source control (which you do), then you’re investing time into learning git and/or fixing git, or maybe using a project like this.
- keerthiko 3y ago
  You literally just said what GP said in different words, but prefaced it with "Or" as if it's a disagreement. What you said boils down to "inadequate training".
  - willy_k 3y ago
    We both agree that they didn’t know the tool, but GP seems to blame them for deciding to use the tool without training. I was more or less defending their choice to use git, while also acknowledging the potential of a tool like Diversion. My interpretation of GP was that it doubled down on git, while claiming that anyone using git without understanding it is “doing it wrong”, which I agree with in principle but not in practice, as I argued in my initial comment.

NateEag 3y ago

And the tool made a screwup that hard not only possible, but very difficult for the victims to recover from. Doesn't say a lot for git's usability.

funcDropShadow 3y ago
They used --force which is usually the flag to say: Here there be dragon. Be careful.
- mbreese 3y ago
  Yeah, I can’t see how use of a —-force flag by people who didn’t know what they were doing is enough of a reason to switch to a different VCS (let alone write one). The issue was people using a tool in a way that they shouldn’t have. Which isn’t a technical problem, but a training problem. You can’t fix people problems with technology, so I’m sure there will be other footguns in this new system that someone else will figure out how to almost lose data. Git is great in that it is flexible and powerful. But that power leaves some tools open to people who don’t know what they are doing… that’s the trade off. (Now something that better handles non-code assets and large data files, I’d be much more willing to listen to that pitch.)
JeremyNT 3y ago
A couple of thoughts about this: One is that the possibility of overwriting history / etc is a really powerful and useful feature, but one that should only be used with some consideration, hence being gated behind the scary '--force'. The fact that git provides one the ability to discard and overwrite commits for a ref shouldn't be an endorsement of doing so freely. I'm glad git has this capability though and any "git alternative" would be all the worse if it didn't provide it, IMO. Two is that if the concern is git's usability - i.e. the "problem" here is that it's too "easy" for users to do destructive actions accidentally - well, there are ways to solve that other than to reinvent all of git. There are plenty of alternative git UIs already, and an alternative UI is a great way to be "wire compatible" for existing users but still help protect those novice users from footguns.

swells34 3y ago

I think you just sold their pitch with this comment... I, like many many people here, have done quite a bit of product design. What do you call it when a bunch of people use your product, and it breaks for several of them? That generally indicates your product is weak, or has a very rough UI.

MrDarcy 3y ago
The pitch simply wasn’t true. Data was not destroyed and was restored hours later.
- swells34 3y ago
  It's a pitch. The story has obviously been embellished and polished and condensed, ready public consumption. Being pedantic against it is not productive.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    If the pitch is dishonest, why would I ever trust them with something as vital as my VCS? (And yes, "embellished" means dishonest)
  - spiderice 3y ago
    That's a creative way to defend a dishonest pitch
  - MrDarcy 3y ago
    Politely disagree. It’s productive because hopefully future teams who launch on HN ask each other, “Is what we’re saying true?” during all those polishing and condensing sessions. If they don’t, the risk is crossing a line that damages the reputation of the team and undermines months if not years of hard work.
  - water-your-self 3y ago
    This is not a pedantic criticism.
- 3y ago