4 ms·

I can't stand Git. The points the author makes in the intro are true. Developers learn just enough Git to do their jobs, which is unfortunately more Git than th

I can't stand Git. The points the author makes in the intro are true. Developers learn just enough Git to do their jobs, which is unfortunately more Git than they actually understand. I'm including myself in this. I've been using Git for nearly 20 years (since the very beginning), and I still can't accomplish anything more than the most basic things without reading documentation and hitting up the net for help. Even if I stick with simple operations, I can get in over my head. WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means. I don't know what the reflog is, other than that it has to do with some dark internals. Resolving merge conflicts during a rebase is a clusterfuck. And on any team I've ever worked on, the branch history is a nightmare to look at. So I clicked on this link with the hope that it might be a kinder, simpler VCS. Especially after the article author talked about how bad Git's CLI is and how much better Jujutsu's is. But it looks like it's just as much of an overcomplicated clusterfuck, and since it's built on top of Git, you still get to experience all the pain of Git if anything goes wrong. And I wonder what kind of frightening scenario occurs when some contributors use Jujutsu and some use Git. I understand that Git is powerful, and many of its features are valuable for large teams working on enormous projects (like the Linux kernel it was invented to manage). Hardly anyone needs that, though. I want a dead simple VCS for small project use that doesn't come with so many footguns. I know simpler VCS exists, but without wide adoption, GitHub-like repos, and tooling support, using Git is still the path of least resistance.

wsatb 3y ago
But how often do you really need more than the basics? I think you're probably doing something wrong if you constantly need to look up docs on it. If you're not constantly doing that, it sounds pretty good. Takes care of the basics and the more complicated features stay out of the way.
never_inline 3y ago
> So I clicked on this link with the hope that it might be a kinder, simpler VCS. Last thing we want is a kinder, simpler, dumber VCS replacing git, like microframeworks which hardly have HTTP routing and middleware replaced full featured frameworks.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  The very comment you’re cherry-picking from right now doesn’t pose a complete git replacement. It’s posing a replacement for git in certain situations.
  - caymanjim 3y ago
    I dunno why you got downvoted to dead state. I vouched your comment because you're not wrong.
Arelius 3y ago
> I don't know what the reflog is, other than that it has to do with some dark internals. I think this illustrates a bit the tragedy of git's (lack of) UI. Since the reflog is a feature, not an exposed hidden internal. It's simply a log of what a reference, say HEAD, or a branch, has pointed at. It's meant to help you figure out what happened, or get back to a place you lost through some other operation.
- notdonspaulding 3y ago
  Doesn't it strike you as odd that devs get "lost" often enough to need this "feature"? I've used CVS, SVN, hg, bzr, and git. Why does git stand alone as the only VCS where devs need so many foot bandages?
  - never_inline 3y ago
    I haven't used reflog in probably 2-3 months but it's just a small thing to know it doesn't hurt.
  - Arelius 3y ago
    Because we insist on telling people to Rebase as part of the standard workflow, which is just a huge footgun for people who dont understand what they are doing.
  - CGamesPlay 3y ago
    Not really. I think of it as git’s undo button. I don’t criticize my word processor for being so complex that it needs an undo button.
    - Certhas 3y ago
      The point is that other tools achieve the same with less complexity in the users mental model. If you use the undo button because your word processor doesn't do what you want a lot, maybe look for a word processor that's better designed.
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
Buttons840 3y ago
> WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means. I don't know what the reflog is, other than that it has to do with some dark internals. I could answer, but I don't think you're actually asking for someone to explain it to you. I did want to offer a different opinion though. I like detached heads, they are unnamed branches, the first thing I do when working on something new is make a detached head and get to work, making commits, etc, if I decide the work is worth keeping, then I will name the branch. As some smart people have said, naming things is hard, I don't want to name a branch before I'm sure what it is or that I'm going to keep it. Having a bunch of commits that are not part of a branch might sound risky, but not if you understand that commits are never deleted (unless there 90 days old or more) and the reflog and other tools allow you to find commits you thought might be lost. Git does not lose commits, not ever.
- theamk 3y ago
  Naming is only hard if the names are permanent (cough fossil & hg) But git names are not permanent, so just use whatever helps you remember: "just-ate-tuna-sandwich", "fifth-time-is-a-charm", "john-is-late", "idea-from-restroom", even "temp123"... You can always rename to something that makes sense later.
  - ninkendo 3y ago
    Yup, my names break up into two categories, each with a namespace: `wip/` and `deadend/`. deadend is my personal favorite. Every time I write some code that turns out to not work, instead of spamming undo until I get to a known good state, I do: git commit -am “Dead-end: I tried doing X but that didn’t work out” git branch deadend/tried-doing-x git reset —-hard HEAD^ I like this because, fully half the time I end up needing to draw some elements from that dead-end if it turns out later to have seeds of the right approach in it. `git branch <something-temporary>` is an absolutely fantastic workflow IMO, combined with committing early-and-often, it helps me decide on logical names for various snapshots of where I was when trying to solve a problem. When I hear people say “squashing is wrong” I can never understand what they’re on about: being able to make temporary semi-meaningful commits and branches on your way to the right answer to a problem, is an absolute godsend.
coryrc 3y ago
> I still can't accomplish anything more than the most basic things... A few hours on https://learngitbranching.js.org/ https://learngitbranching.js.org/ and it'll make sense to you.
letslearn 3y ago
Maybe version control is actually a hard problem, and there are no simple solutions. And I'm sorry to pile on, but if you haven't learned more than the basics in 20 years, have you considered sitting down and doing some focused git work? Maybe play with libgit2 and learn the internals.
bun_terminator 3y ago
Yeah I've just given up on git. There should not be as many interfaces and experts on such a little tool. Now I only use commits and reverts. Not even branches. And all 100% with a GUI. Otherwise it takes up way too much of your attention
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Why many developers are struggling is beyond me, and so much git-hate, too. It is a powerful tool, but you can get started and a long time (or forever) around with few commands to accomplish your companies workflow - takes half an hour to learn these and put them in your notebook. If you struggle with git, how do you do with your programming language, IDE, debugger? All are vastly more complex. Imo it is some internal objection (due to hate? laziness?) to deal with it. Yes, the UI is not intuitive in all parts and partly ugly or from some viewpoints inconsistent, but that lately improved much. Nevertheless, complex is different. Much more effort went into mastering chosen shell, much more unintuitive is the IDE I have to use.. but those are tools, and that's my job. > WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means. Don't wanna be mean, but again I wonder how you learn and handle e.g. complex data structures (vs that super simple thing..) or other hard problems in whatever you do. > And on any team I've ever worked on, the branch history is a nightmare to look at. Because teams have many people that don't care. I like git, shuffle commits around, rebase easily, conflicts are easy to resolve (there are merge tools that exist to help on top?) or would be hard with any other tool the same? (need to try jj). At least I have seen same shit happen with cvs, svn and also the short time I used hg - people are always at fight with their version control, I don't know why. I'm glad if there is a new tool that finally solves this, buut, I doubt it ;) Let's see. > I want a dead simple VCS for small project use that doesn't come with so many footguns. I know simpler VCS exists, but without wide Sorry, but lame excuse, just chose and try one and see, don't spread that much git-hate if you have not even tried, and mastered, another one? (And here you are with jj!)
- keithalewis 3y ago
  OP said 'I can't stand Git.' You seem to be obsessed with labeling that as 'hate' (3 times) and belittling people you think are not as smart as you. I'd bet within the past week you were swearing at git. :-)
  - ninkendo 3y ago
    I’m a native english speaker and I view “hate” and “can’t stand” as being synonyms. I can’t for the life of me draw a distinction between what either phrase means.

wsatb 3y ago

But how often do you really need more than the basics? I think you're probably doing something wrong if you constantly need to look up docs on it. If you're not constantly doing that, it sounds pretty good. Takes care of the basics and the more complicated features stay out of the way.

never_inline 3y ago

> So I clicked on this link with the hope that it might be a kinder, simpler VCS. Last thing we want is a kinder, simpler, dumber VCS replacing git, like microframeworks which hardly have HTTP routing and middleware replaced full featured frameworks.

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
The very comment you’re cherry-picking from right now doesn’t pose a complete git replacement. It’s posing a replacement for git in certain situations.
- caymanjim 3y ago
  I dunno why you got downvoted to dead state. I vouched your comment because you're not wrong.

Arelius 3y ago

> I don't know what the reflog is, other than that it has to do with some dark internals. I think this illustrates a bit the tragedy of git's (lack of) UI. Since the reflog is a feature, not an exposed hidden internal. It's simply a log of what a reference, say HEAD, or a branch, has pointed at. It's meant to help you figure out what happened, or get back to a place you lost through some other operation.

notdonspaulding 3y ago
Doesn't it strike you as odd that devs get "lost" often enough to need this "feature"? I've used CVS, SVN, hg, bzr, and git. Why does git stand alone as the only VCS where devs need so many foot bandages?
- never_inline 3y ago
  I haven't used reflog in probably 2-3 months but it's just a small thing to know it doesn't hurt.
- Arelius 3y ago
  Because we insist on telling people to Rebase as part of the standard workflow, which is just a huge footgun for people who dont understand what they are doing.
- CGamesPlay 3y ago
  Not really. I think of it as git’s undo button. I don’t criticize my word processor for being so complex that it needs an undo button.
  - Certhas 3y ago
    The point is that other tools achieve the same with less complexity in the users mental model. If you use the undo button because your word processor doesn't do what you want a lot, maybe look for a word processor that's better designed.
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

Buttons840 3y ago

> WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means. I don't know what the reflog is, other than that it has to do with some dark internals. I could answer, but I don't think you're actually asking for someone to explain it to you. I did want to offer a different opinion though. I like detached heads, they are unnamed branches, the first thing I do when working on something new is make a detached head and get to work, making commits, etc, if I decide the work is worth keeping, then I will name the branch. As some smart people have said, naming things is hard, I don't want to name a branch before I'm sure what it is or that I'm going to keep it. Having a bunch of commits that are not part of a branch might sound risky, but not if you understand that commits are never deleted (unless there 90 days old or more) and the reflog and other tools allow you to find commits you thought might be lost. Git does not lose commits, not ever.

theamk 3y ago
Naming is only hard if the names are permanent (cough fossil & hg) But git names are not permanent, so just use whatever helps you remember: "just-ate-tuna-sandwich", "fifth-time-is-a-charm", "john-is-late", "idea-from-restroom", even "temp123"... You can always rename to something that makes sense later.
- ninkendo 3y ago
  Yup, my names break up into two categories, each with a namespace: `wip/` and `deadend/`. deadend is my personal favorite. Every time I write some code that turns out to not work, instead of spamming undo until I get to a known good state, I do: git commit -am “Dead-end: I tried doing X but that didn’t work out” git branch deadend/tried-doing-x git reset —-hard HEAD^ I like this because, fully half the time I end up needing to draw some elements from that dead-end if it turns out later to have seeds of the right approach in it. `git branch <something-temporary>` is an absolutely fantastic workflow IMO, combined with committing early-and-often, it helps me decide on logical names for various snapshots of where I was when trying to solve a problem. When I hear people say “squashing is wrong” I can never understand what they’re on about: being able to make temporary semi-meaningful commits and branches on your way to the right answer to a problem, is an absolute godsend.

coryrc 3y ago

> I still can't accomplish anything more than the most basic things... A few hours on https://learngitbranching.js.org/ https://learngitbranching.js.org/ and it'll make sense to you.

letslearn 3y ago

Maybe version control is actually a hard problem, and there are no simple solutions. And I'm sorry to pile on, but if you haven't learned more than the basics in 20 years, have you considered sitting down and doing some focused git work? Maybe play with libgit2 and learn the internals.

bun_terminator 3y ago

Yeah I've just given up on git. There should not be as many interfaces and experts on such a little tool. Now I only use commits and reverts. Not even branches. And all 100% with a GUI. Otherwise it takes up way too much of your attention

throwbadubadu 3y ago

Why many developers are struggling is beyond me, and so much git-hate, too. It is a powerful tool, but you can get started and a long time (or forever) around with few commands to accomplish your companies workflow - takes half an hour to learn these and put them in your notebook. If you struggle with git, how do you do with your programming language, IDE, debugger? All are vastly more complex. Imo it is some internal objection (due to hate? laziness?) to deal with it. Yes, the UI is not intuitive in all parts and partly ugly or from some viewpoints inconsistent, but that lately improved much. Nevertheless, complex is different. Much more effort went into mastering chosen shell, much more unintuitive is the IDE I have to use.. but those are tools, and that's my job. > WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means. Don't wanna be mean, but again I wonder how you learn and handle e.g. complex data structures (vs that super simple thing..) or other hard problems in whatever you do. > And on any team I've ever worked on, the branch history is a nightmare to look at. Because teams have many people that don't care. I like git, shuffle commits around, rebase easily, conflicts are easy to resolve (there are merge tools that exist to help on top?) or would be hard with any other tool the same? (need to try jj). At least I have seen same shit happen with cvs, svn and also the short time I used hg - people are always at fight with their version control, I don't know why. I'm glad if there is a new tool that finally solves this, buut, I doubt it ;) Let's see. > I want a dead simple VCS for small project use that doesn't come with so many footguns. I know simpler VCS exists, but without wide Sorry, but lame excuse, just chose and try one and see, don't spread that much git-hate if you have not even tried, and mastered, another one? (And here you are with jj!)

keithalewis 3y ago
OP said 'I can't stand Git.' You seem to be obsessed with labeling that as 'hate' (3 times) and belittling people you think are not as smart as you. I'd bet within the past week you were swearing at git. :-)
- ninkendo 3y ago
  I’m a native english speaker and I view “hate” and “can’t stand” as being synonyms. I can’t for the life of me draw a distinction between what either phrase means.