[popmystack]

You consider his first post to be productive? You must be dreaming.

> ajkjk strikes me as someone making reasonable points

He is not making any point, so it's weird that you would say that. He hypocritically stated I was coming off as arrogant. Fair game, even though I really don't see how it remotely comes off that way, but you can't exempt yourself from your own criticism in a post that does not constructively further the conversation in any way.

> You are coming across as unnecessarily arrogant and prickly, and thus someone with whom it's best to avoid discussion.

Apparently so, but I don't see it. I gave my opinion, and that was it.

>you might reconsider ajkjk's criticism

I most definitely will not, as this is a technical discussion. I'm not going to muddle the waters. Nothing I said was needlessly "arrogant" (at what point was puffing myself up?) -- and if it was prickly then I'd question why it was chosen to focus on that aspect of it instead of directly countering what was stated.

When discussing technical matters: leave your ego at the door. At every turn I gave him a chance to actually discuss something and he refused to do so. The fact that you decided to continue this non-sense is mind-boggling to me. What's the point?

[nkurz]

I most definitely will not, as this is a technical discussion.

For better or worse, like most discussions, it also has social aspects. Consideration of these aspects may help you better convey your technical points.

What's the point?

Based on your comment history, you have technical knowledge that others could benefit from, but aren't very successful in getting your point across without being downvoted or flagged. If you continue with your current approach, at some point your account will likely be banned. Whether they are exactly accurate or not, I think contemplating ajkjk's criticisms may help provide you insight that will allow you to have better interactions with HN.

The fact that you decided to continue this non-sense is mind-boggling to me.

I am generally a very technical person, I use git frequently and only by the command line interface, I think I mostly understand the underlying operations, and yet I frequently am baffled by the commands required to get from where I am to where I want to be. While I likely can overcome this through study and repetition, I think git would be a more useful tool for others in the future if the user facing command line interface was improved.

Viewed over the longer term (and I say this as someone who approached git through RCS, CVS, and SVN and likes the improvements Git offers) the current interface is not perfect, is not set in stone, and improvements are a good thing. Assumptions that the 'gitless' authors are only doing this because they do not properly understand the internals of git are likely incorrect. While I don't think 'gitless' quite has the right solution, I think attempts to better align git's command line interface with the underlying operations are commendable, not pointless, and decidedly not nonsense.

[popmystack]

>Consideration of these aspects may help you better convey your technical points.

And yet despite him blatantly confronting me in an aggressive personal manner, you've ignored his original post and decided to focus on my post, all in spite of my attempts to keep the conversation on topic. Most likely because you agree with him. It really removes any credence from his post and other posts echoing him about my original post being "prickly" when you're a complete dick to someone directly. Talk about arrogance.

I can't call a technical concept brain damaged, but aggressively labeling people in a confrontational manner is a-okay. Got it.

>and yet I frequently am baffled by the commands required to get from where I am to where I want to be.

Have an example? Most of the examples I've seen come from a fundamental misunderstanding about what git is doing. Git is rarely in the wrong.

There's a lot of internal plumbing commands that are completely backwards (or just have not been updated to align with the rest of the toolset) but an extremely small majority of people will ever even know about them, let alone have to use them. Especially if you're just starting out with git.

>think attempts to better align git's command line interface with the underlying operations are commendable

Except as presented in the examples I've given, it's doing the exact opposite of this. It's going against the very basic foundation of git. Git is an acyclic graph with each node representing a change delta from its "parent." The very fact that branches suddenly keep track of which specific changesets (tracked or not!) belong to them is completely counter to how the very core of git works.

That's non-sense.