4 ms·

I agree. I almost think the name GitHub is unfortunate at this point: they're doing something so right they could nearly invent their own VCS, use ESR's new to

by arh68 12y ago

I agree. I almost think the name GitHub is unfortunate at this point: they're doing something so right they could nearly invent their own VCS, use ESR's new tool, or even switch to hg/darcs/etc, and still gain momentum. The Go community seems to be hopping onto a fairly heavy pendulum.

smt88 12y ago
The best-engineered technology rarely becomes the most popular. I think git has some huge problems, but now it's ubiquitous. Everyone has at least a basic knowledge of it, and that makes it the best technology. Switching to something else would be a step backward.
- nightcracker 12y ago
  What are gits huge problems and what other technology solves those? Not trying to put you on the spot, just curious.
  - Matumio 12y ago
    IMO the main problem is that the command vocabulary is a mess. Do I need a soft, mixed or hard reset? Can I use "reset" to revert a single file, or do I need "checkout" for that? After years of using and loving git, this still confuses me. It's all logical in terms of git internals, but I'm not thinking in those terms when I want to revert something.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      The "plumbing" is beautiful and the "porcelain" is a hideous mess.
    - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
      And this will never get fixed so long as people keep denying there's a problem. Even when people want to fix stuff like this it's hard to transition well from where you are to where you want to be, but at the moment people seem to be able to use this poorly evolved interface daily without noticing these ridiculous and uneccesary inconsistancies.
    - beagle3 12y ago
      There are countless git frontends (easygit and git legit) that come to mind, and yet they all see negligible use. I think the cognitive load of using git is overrated. Yes, it could probably be simpler. No, you probably can't make simple and intuitive for everyone while retaining all the features. Given that it's also easy to work with e.g. subversion or mercurial and a git bridge, so you can use the client of your choice with a git server, and yet no one seems to do that is an indication that git is sufficiently simple to use.
      - smt88 12y ago
        > yet they all see negligible use. Evidence? Using my own anecdotal evidence, I strongly disagree. I checked volume for GUI-related keywords[1] against CLI-related keywords[2]. The GUI-related keywords get ~34,000 searches per month. The CLI-related keywords get ~4,500. My methodology and data aren't perfect, but it's something at least. Your premises are: - People use tools that are sufficiently simple. - People use git CLI instead of git GUIs. And your argument is: - Git CLI is sufficiently simple. Your first premise is just wrong. People use complicated things all the time because they don't know about simpler things. People also often think things are simple and then use them wrong. In my experience, a LOT of people use git wrong/dangerously. I've addressed your second premise above. There isn't (and may never be) good data there, though. [1] git gui; smartgit; git client; git tower; github gui; git frontend [2] git command; git "command line"; git cli
        beagle3 12y ago
        You misread me, and it is my fault. I wrote "front ends" meaning CLI front ends, and gave two examples. You read that as "GUI front ends" and replied accordingly. So, let me restate my argument (which I suspect you may still disagree with - but hopefully this time you'll disagree with what I actually meant to claim...) The main complaint that I have heard about git is that its command line is an incoherent inconsistent unusable mess. My opinion is that is true, it perceived to be a much bigger problem than in really is - there are lots of CLI alternatives to working with git, and their use is negligible compared to actual git CLI use. Therefore, I suspect, a perfect git CLI would not have made a big difference in adoption. The other thing is git is incredibly flexible. Almost no one uses all the options, but much like Microsoft Word, everyone uses a different 20%. And I suspect any system with this level of flexibility is likely to be complex. Which is not to say git is at an optimum; only to say that there's a reason there's not an accepted "perfect" CLI (for git or another VCS) - inherent complexity associated with flexibility.
jesstaa 12y ago
The format that git stores it's data in is great, the tool most commonly used to access that data is a bit of a mess. So there's no reason not to use git with a different UI and there are a lot of UIs for git.
emmelaich 12y ago
github is great largely because git is the best (d)vcs. Github was the first and the best so they got (and deserve) the lion's share of the market. Also they got a lot of clients that would have otherwise chosen code.google because Google put up barriers in terms of licences.

by arh68 12y ago

smt88 12y ago

The best-engineered technology rarely becomes the most popular. I think git has some huge problems, but now it's ubiquitous. Everyone has at least a basic knowledge of it, and that makes it the best technology. Switching to something else would be a step backward.

nightcracker 12y ago
What are gits huge problems and what other technology solves those? Not trying to put you on the spot, just curious.
- Matumio 12y ago
  IMO the main problem is that the command vocabulary is a mess. Do I need a soft, mixed or hard reset? Can I use "reset" to revert a single file, or do I need "checkout" for that? After years of using and loving git, this still confuses me. It's all logical in terms of git internals, but I'm not thinking in those terms when I want to revert something.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    The "plumbing" is beautiful and the "porcelain" is a hideous mess.
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    And this will never get fixed so long as people keep denying there's a problem. Even when people want to fix stuff like this it's hard to transition well from where you are to where you want to be, but at the moment people seem to be able to use this poorly evolved interface daily without noticing these ridiculous and uneccesary inconsistancies.
  - beagle3 12y ago
    There are countless git frontends (easygit and git legit) that come to mind, and yet they all see negligible use. I think the cognitive load of using git is overrated. Yes, it could probably be simpler. No, you probably can't make simple and intuitive for everyone while retaining all the features. Given that it's also easy to work with e.g. subversion or mercurial and a git bridge, so you can use the client of your choice with a git server, and yet no one seems to do that is an indication that git is sufficiently simple to use.
    - smt88 12y ago
      > yet they all see negligible use. Evidence? Using my own anecdotal evidence, I strongly disagree. I checked volume for GUI-related keywords[1] against CLI-related keywords[2]. The GUI-related keywords get ~34,000 searches per month. The CLI-related keywords get ~4,500. My methodology and data aren't perfect, but it's something at least. Your premises are: - People use tools that are sufficiently simple. - People use git CLI instead of git GUIs. And your argument is: - Git CLI is sufficiently simple. Your first premise is just wrong. People use complicated things all the time because they don't know about simpler things. People also often think things are simple and then use them wrong. In my experience, a LOT of people use git wrong/dangerously. I've addressed your second premise above. There isn't (and may never be) good data there, though. [1] git gui; smartgit; git client; git tower; github gui; git frontend [2] git command; git "command line"; git cli
      - beagle3 12y ago
        You misread me, and it is my fault. I wrote "front ends" meaning CLI front ends, and gave two examples. You read that as "GUI front ends" and replied accordingly. So, let me restate my argument (which I suspect you may still disagree with - but hopefully this time you'll disagree with what I actually meant to claim...) The main complaint that I have heard about git is that its command line is an incoherent inconsistent unusable mess. My opinion is that is true, it perceived to be a much bigger problem than in really is - there are lots of CLI alternatives to working with git, and their use is negligible compared to actual git CLI use. Therefore, I suspect, a perfect git CLI would not have made a big difference in adoption. The other thing is git is incredibly flexible. Almost no one uses all the options, but much like Microsoft Word, everyone uses a different 20%. And I suspect any system with this level of flexibility is likely to be complex. Which is not to say git is at an optimum; only to say that there's a reason there's not an accepted "perfect" CLI (for git or another VCS) - inherent complexity associated with flexibility.

jesstaa 12y ago

The format that git stores it's data in is great, the tool most commonly used to access that data is a bit of a mess. So there's no reason not to use git with a different UI and there are a lot of UIs for git.

emmelaich 12y ago

github is great largely because git is the best (d)vcs. Github was the first and the best so they got (and deserve) the lion's share of the market. Also they got a lot of clients that would have otherwise chosen code.google because Google put up barriers in terms of licences.