[popmystack]

This seems extremely pointless. At worst, this seems like the Gitless team doesn't understand what Git is doing internally, which is a pretty dangerous state to be in when you're trying to "improve" something.

Git as a whole:

* Makes it really hard for you to do something you really shouldn't be doing

* Forces you to stay "clean" and guides you to working well with other repository copies (i.e. the whole point of Git).

* Warns you and makes suggestions when you make a mistake, from silly typos to incorrect command flags.

* Makes it easy to guess how the command should be formatted or how certain structures are formatted based on convention.

They decided to rename certain features that not only give you the wrong idea of what's actually going on, but will no doubt make it extremely hard to research any errors if something goes wrong. A good example of thing is gitless' "fusing" feature. It's just rebasing stuff. Why rename it? Why rename "checkout" with "switch", when this semantic is used throughout git?

And then you have completely brain-damaged concepts such as this:

>(i.e., a file can be untracked on some branch but tracked on another and Gitless will remember this):

Honestly? There was no better way to indicate to me that you're just trying to make git fit some erroneous concepts in your head, and that you don't really understand what you're doing. This combined with the "auto-save" feature seems like a terribly, terribly bad idea and is just begging for a lazy developer who didn't take the time to understand his tools to completely shit on the repository he's working on, locally or remotely.

Take the time to understand your tools. Git is incredibly simple underneath. It's not complicated.

[ajkjk]

You have such a toxic and arrogant attitude about people trying to make the world a better place. It's shameful.

[popmystack]

Uh, what? You respond to my post with some of the problems with this system in a hyperbolic, confronting manner without contributing anything. They are not "making the world a better place."

Please don't post such non-sense here.

[ajkjk]

Someone makes a project trying to make something easier to learn (so, trying to make the world a better place), and you call it "extremely pointless", you tell them they "don't understand Git", they're "brain-damaged", "erroneous", they should "take the time to understand their tools", because the tools are "not complicated" and "incredibly simple".

Besides your arrogant "I'm right, you're stupid and wrong, and there's no questioning me" attitude, why would you take such a hostile tone towards anyone's work, ever? How could you think that's okay or constructive?

I'm hugely sympathetic to the opinion that Git is needlessly difficult to learn and needless easy to make mistakes in due to huge flaws in the CLI. I'd present that case, but, hey, it's presented a hundred times here and everywhere else. It's clear there's no point arguing that point to you, though, because I'd be stupid and wrong just for disagreeing with you. So instead I'm trying to convey that your arrogance is unacceptable in the community in the hopes that it will not reappear.

[popmystack]

>Someone makes a project trying to make something easier to learn (so, trying to make the world a better place)

Again, spare me the hyperbolic the "trying to make the world a better place." The principle behind my post, as given in my very first statement is that they basically failed. They are gearing people towards failure. It would have been better to just create a thin layer on top of git with slightly renamed or alias commands -- all while having "release valves" that guide you into the true, underlying community crafted toolset underneath that git has been using for years (and for very good reason). Any errors you're likely to come across while using git have been documented either by the team or in various posts around the internet. It's easy to search for these errors. If your target audience are developers who have a hard time with Git, why would you make it needlessly hard to research errors that are likely to happen (given how new this tooling is). For example: labeling rebasing as "fusing" is basically telling them: "haha, good luck googling what just went wrong!". Good luck hopping on an IRC or Slack channel and getting someone to help you. A decade of community problem solving and documentation just went out the window because the Gitless team decided to play musical semantics with commands.

>why would you take such a hostile tone towards anyone's work, ever?

Leave your ego at the door. We're talking about a toolset.

>Besides your arrogant "I'm right, you're stupid and wrong, and there's no questioning me" attitude

Please do not respond to any of my posts in this thread anymore, especially if that is the basis of this comment chain. That is a ridiculous sentiment and I'm not going to devote any effort into addressing it.

>I'm hugely sympathetic to the opinion that Git is needlessly difficult to learn and needless easy to make mistakes

I would strongly disagree about the "needlessly difficult" part, but I would also claim that the "easy to make mistakes" is demonstrably false with Git. Git makes it extremely difficult again to do something you should not be doing in the first place and then the community over the years has placed plenty of warnings when you do those questionable actions anyways; on top of giving you the ability to revert the mistake and bring your repository to a sane place with one simple command. Checking out branches with conflicting changes is just one of the simpler safety checks and roadblock that Git provides where Gitless decided to just go "Nah, you can actually do that." with seemingly no apology as to why you would ever want to allow such a thing -- other than just for the sake of convenience, but I would label it as laziness as it makes it incredibly easy to pollute your repository at that point. It doesn't even provide any kind of warning mechanism or cleanup tool for this handy "feature."

>So instead I'm trying to convey that your arrogance is unacceptable in the community in the hopes that it will not reappear.

The only thing worse than calling me arrogant is your complete, unconstructive obliviousness towards your own attitude. Not only have you still failed to say anything worthwhile or present any kind of counter to my opinion, but you're being a complete dick about it and trying to label me in a negative light for no reason. Which ends up really at the end of the day making you a troll at worst and a hypocrite at best.

[ajkjk]

I am not talking about a toolset. I'm talking about how I believe you have a "I'm right, you're stupid and wrong" attitude. So I'm not disputing your opinion about Gitless, I'm criticizing how you presented it. I don't think the sentiment is ridiculous, because I think it's correct; clearly if you write it off as ridiculous then we're just talking past each other. Similarly, I don't think I am labeling you in a negative light for "no reason": the reason is that you are acting in a way that I think deserves to be called out negatively, so as to hopefully dissuade you from acting that way.

I do happen to think Gitless is a noble effort that will not change the world or be adopted by much of anyone, as with many interesting projects that are posted here, but I still think you should be non-hostile towards it, and sympathetic instead of dismissive towards the problem it is trying to solve (since clearly there are heaps of people who feel the same way, as evidenced by these and many other comment threads).