3 ms·
This sort of article sounds like s/unix/git/g of rants against UNIX/Linux command line & filesystem concepts that were common in the late 90's, as it was becomi
by parasubvert 14y ago
This sort of article sounds like s/unix/git/g of rants against UNIX/Linux command line & filesystem concepts that were common in the late 90's, as it was becoming clear that UNIX wasn't actually going to be killed by Windows NT, but rather was resurgent. Examples included:
- "Yuck, why such different terminology from DOS?"
- "Commands are inconsistent and there are too many, where's my One Command or (better yet) One GUI that does everything they way I think about it?"
- "Yuck, scripts that make things easier for my particular workflow, why didn't they just build it right the first time?"
Fundamentally it comes down to people who believe version control is a simple problem, and git confuses that for no good reason, or those who believe version control is an inherently complicated problem, and tends to require some study to understand the concepts. Git doesn't hand-hold, it exposes the core concepts at the data level, thus supporting any workflow for any size of team or work style. If you prefer a dictated workflow and task structure, there are plenty of wrappers that will help you - just don't be surprised if not every team agrees with your preferred workflow.
- pwang 14y ago> it exposes the core concepts at the data level But it exposes them poorly, from a user interface standpoint. The beauty of UNIX, actually, is that it provided a few simplifying abstractions (block files, character devices, pipes), and everything used that. Imagine if catting the contents of something from /dev was different than piping the contents of a tarball. That's the sort of UI/UX frustrations that TFA (and others) rant about. This is not a "DVCS vs. SVN/CVS" issue. This is about git's usability.