4 ms·
> It's probably just something no one has thought of doing There are 1000 things that's true of about git. At a certain point that becomes a problem in and of
by maccard 4mo ago
> It's probably just something no one has thought of doing
There are 1000 things that's true of about git. At a certain point that becomes a problem in and of itself.
- yoyohello13 4mo agoLuckily it’s an open source project so you could go in and clean up the ux.
- LtdJorge 4mo agoProbably unacceptable as many would have built tooling around the specific default behaviors.
- Jaxan 4mo agoYou can have your own version. You don’t have to push all improvements upstream.
- swiftcoder 4mo agoIt's not really feasible to maintain private forks of every piece of software you use (especially something like git that needs regular security patches)
- throw_await 4mo agoIf tooling is relying on the output format of porcelain commands, it's wrong. The output of various subcommands have already changed more than once.
- tredre3 4mo agoRelying on porcelain commands' output is the official way of interacting with git, they famously always refused to break it into a library. Nobody is going to use the low level git commands because: 1. Their output isn't any more reliable than the porcelain, and 2. How the porcelain uses them is also subject to change, so your UI might end up doing something different from the git high level command which is undesirable. At least they gave us the `--porcelain` flag, meant exactly for this use case, to make the output format of porcelain commands never change. Dumb flag name, though.
- andrewflnr 4mo agoGreat, then your choices are (a) try and probably fail to get your changes upstreamed and/or (b) maintain your own fork of git forever. This is very much a "if you don't like X about your country, just move to a different one" kind of "solution". The costs are extreme to the point that pretending it's viable is insulting. Really it's just a way to silence legitimate complaints.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- MobiusHorizons 4mo agoto be fair, if you just want to improve the UX for yourself you can totally have a fork, make your changes, and use it on your own machines when talking to github or whatever other git repository. Now getting someone else to accept your changes might be harder, but that's what happens when you try to change a tool so many people use, especially one with a lot of history. Maintaining a fork is literally one of the things git was designed to make feasible after all.
- pseudalopex 4mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48573493 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48573493