3 ms·

haha this is a bit of a sad take in my opinion, because of the value that I feel that comes with understanding how a tool like Git works behind the scenes, but

haha this is a bit of a sad take in my opinion, because of the value that I feel that comes with understanding how a tool like Git works behind the scenes, but seems to be several folks here who feel the same way you do

bloomingkales 2y ago
It's not a sad take. There are many roles in tech and I'd encourage those trying to make things to focus on that. You can get extremely far with 4 git commands. Even in a production team environment, you may only need to ever add in the merge workflow.
- initialcommit 2y ago
  The reason it's sad to me is because there is so much more to explore, to be stimulated by, to be able to apply in a way that makes you think out of the box. Maybe a lot of people don't care about that, and I guess everybody has their threshold, where as long as they know the minimum required to do their job they can stay in that comfort zone typing the same commands over and over.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nottoohard 2y ago
    [flagged]
- credit_guy 2y ago
  I agree with you. My typical workflow is: update master branch in Visual Studio, create a new branch off of the master, work on it, when ready use GitGUI to commit and push, then do a merge request in GitLab (we use GitLab). When approved, I push the branch to master. From time to time I need to update my branch, either because I make some code changes, or because my branch a few commits behind the master. Would I like to know more about the underlying ideas of Git. Yes. But the time it would take me to do that is time I can spend on other things, like the stuff I am actually paid to do. If I become a git guru, I might get a pat on the back, but more likely no one would care. If I deliver more stuff, people who use my stuff actually appreciate it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
delecti 2y ago
I feel the same way. All of git's weirdness seems totally reasonable once you understand it on its own terms. It doesn't even take a ton of understanding to get that that point either.

bloomingkales 2y ago

It's not a sad take. There are many roles in tech and I'd encourage those trying to make things to focus on that. You can get extremely far with 4 git commands. Even in a production team environment, you may only need to ever add in the merge workflow.

initialcommit 2y ago
The reason it's sad to me is because there is so much more to explore, to be stimulated by, to be able to apply in a way that makes you think out of the box. Maybe a lot of people don't care about that, and I guess everybody has their threshold, where as long as they know the minimum required to do their job they can stay in that comfort zone typing the same commands over and over.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nottoohard 2y ago
  [flagged]
credit_guy 2y ago
I agree with you. My typical workflow is: update master branch in Visual Studio, create a new branch off of the master, work on it, when ready use GitGUI to commit and push, then do a merge request in GitLab (we use GitLab). When approved, I push the branch to master. From time to time I need to update my branch, either because I make some code changes, or because my branch a few commits behind the master. Would I like to know more about the underlying ideas of Git. Yes. But the time it would take me to do that is time I can spend on other things, like the stuff I am actually paid to do. If I become a git guru, I might get a pat on the back, but more likely no one would care. If I deliver more stuff, people who use my stuff actually appreciate it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

delecti 2y ago

I feel the same way. All of git's weirdness seems totally reasonable once you understand it on its own terms. It doesn't even take a ton of understanding to get that that point either.