| >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. |