4 ms·

Exactly. The git data model is intuitive and easy to grasp after a short amount of time. The porcelain is poorly designed, but part of that is due to the flex

Exactly. The git data model is intuitive and easy to grasp after a short amount of time. The porcelain is poorly designed, but part of that is due to the flexibility of primitives underneath, and the desire to support arbitrary workflows. Contrast with svn which attempts a very clean porcelain interface with a completely muddled data model underneath. The conflation of repositories, directories and branches in svn makes it impossible for it ever achieve 20% of git's functionality simply because things are so poorly defined. After using git for 6 months I understood it better than I did about svn in the previous 5 years. I would prefer a better porcelain, but given that software development is my full time job and that I can use git for all software development regardless of the language, I'm happy to commit a bit of muscle memory to git's idiosyncrasies.

chx 13y ago
> the desire to support arbitrary workflows. Now I am laughing and laughing bitterly. git supports one workflow -- the massively decentralized one. To this day you can't have a simple workflow with git, the one that cvs/svn supported and practically all small project would benefit from, the one that bzr calls a bound branch. git , I believe , is the textbook case of what the opposite of a user friendly UI is. commands have switches which change the command so fundamentally it should be another command. Which noone wants 'cos there are like 140 commands already. switches which across commands do the same thing but are named differently. The same command doing wildly disparate things without any indication of what's happening -- try git checkout file, and guess what the state of file will be. It might from the staging area or it might come HEAD if it wasn't staged. Nuts.
- Crito 13y ago
  > "To this day you can't have a simple workflow with git, the one that cvs/svn supported and practically all small project would benefit from" What? Of course you can. I've worked on teams that did it. You are talking total rubbish.
  - lmm 13y ago
    I'm a happy git user, but tell me how this is supposed to work: there's me and one other guy working on a project. There are three logical branches: trunk, his branch, and my branch. In SVN there would be five source trees: those three on the server, his working copy and my working copy. But in git we end up with fifteen: the three on the server, my branch on my machine, his branch on my machine, master on my machine, the remote-tracking copies of those three on my machine, and the same again on his machine. All of which could be different. How do I reduce that complexity? I always pull and never fetch, which helps slightly, but only slightly; pull seems to fetch other branches, so it's still possible to have my copy of a branch end up behind my remote-tracking copy of that branch. There's no command analogous to pull for "add and commit and push", so that's always a second step to possibly forget (I don't want to rely on an alias as I work on a number of different machines). Most problematic at the moment is that there's no way to tell the difference between an up-to-date branch and a non-remote-tracking branch, so I sometimes delete branches that I haven't fully pushed, because I forgot to make them remote-tracking, so they didn't show up as behind when I "git status"ed.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo". You and the other developer pull/push from that repo only. In other words, ignore some of git's capabilities and treating git like SVN. Just because you can pull from your teammates, does not mean that you have to. I've been on a team that transitioned from SVN to Perforce, the again to Git, keeping the same workflow all the way through. It isn't the way that I prefer using git, but it works perfectly well.
      - lmm 13y ago
        > Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo" That's the situation I described. We still have the problems I mentioned: sometimes we commit without pushing (particularly because we sometimes didn't set a branch to be remote-tracking and didn't realize this), and sometimes our branches are behind our copy-of-the-remote-branch because we pulled different branches (which leads to bogus merges in the history).

chx 13y ago

> the desire to support arbitrary workflows. Now I am laughing and laughing bitterly. git supports one workflow -- the massively decentralized one. To this day you can't have a simple workflow with git, the one that cvs/svn supported and practically all small project would benefit from, the one that bzr calls a bound branch. git , I believe , is the textbook case of what the opposite of a user friendly UI is. commands have switches which change the command so fundamentally it should be another command. Which noone wants 'cos there are like 140 commands already. switches which across commands do the same thing but are named differently. The same command doing wildly disparate things without any indication of what's happening -- try git checkout file, and guess what the state of file will be. It might from the staging area or it might come HEAD if it wasn't staged. Nuts.

Crito 13y ago
> "To this day you can't have a simple workflow with git, the one that cvs/svn supported and practically all small project would benefit from" What? Of course you can. I've worked on teams that did it. You are talking total rubbish.
- lmm 13y ago
  I'm a happy git user, but tell me how this is supposed to work: there's me and one other guy working on a project. There are three logical branches: trunk, his branch, and my branch. In SVN there would be five source trees: those three on the server, his working copy and my working copy. But in git we end up with fifteen: the three on the server, my branch on my machine, his branch on my machine, master on my machine, the remote-tracking copies of those three on my machine, and the same again on his machine. All of which could be different. How do I reduce that complexity? I always pull and never fetch, which helps slightly, but only slightly; pull seems to fetch other branches, so it's still possible to have my copy of a branch end up behind my remote-tracking copy of that branch. There's no command analogous to pull for "add and commit and push", so that's always a second step to possibly forget (I don't want to rely on an alias as I work on a number of different machines). Most problematic at the moment is that there's no way to tell the difference between an up-to-date branch and a non-remote-tracking branch, so I sometimes delete branches that I haven't fully pushed, because I forgot to make them remote-tracking, so they didn't show up as behind when I "git status"ed.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo". You and the other developer pull/push from that repo only. In other words, ignore some of git's capabilities and treating git like SVN. Just because you can pull from your teammates, does not mean that you have to. I've been on a team that transitioned from SVN to Perforce, the again to Git, keeping the same workflow all the way through. It isn't the way that I prefer using git, but it works perfectly well.
    - lmm 13y ago
      > Set up a repo on a server somewhere and declare it to be the "central repo" That's the situation I described. We still have the problems I mentioned: sometimes we commit without pushing (particularly because we sometimes didn't set a branch to be remote-tracking and didn't realize this), and sometimes our branches are behind our copy-of-the-remote-branch because we pulled different branches (which leads to bogus merges in the history).