|
|
|
|
|
|
by jatone
1756 days ago
|
|
|
tl;dr; a monkey is given a hammer and is baffled by utility. rofl. git is perfectly usable. proven by the hundreds of thousands of people using it daily. most of your 'complaints' here are not actually how git works in reality, and are just user error due to not bothering to learn the tool. 1. git never destroys your work inside a repository unless you told it to. 2. git doesn't 'whisk' things away implicitly. you committed them, that's pretty fucking explicit. 3. ummm every version control is stateful. wtf do you think any given version is? its fucking state. SVN has internal state, git, hg, fossil.... 4. the commands, sure naming is fucking HARD we know this. we also know git gained different features over time to accommodate different workflows. perfect? absolutely not but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. |
|
|
1. a) git's garbage collector runs without asking first. b) git's UI is so bad that users regularly end up in a state where they effectively asked git to destroy data without realizing it. It's often too implicit.
2. Ever modified a file between git add and git commit? Did these extra changes get committed? Some graphical clients try to hide aspects like this.
3. Unlike SVN, hg etc. git has superfluous extra state with complicated rules. The fact that the cache/index/staging area is inconsistently named three different things just illustrates how byzantine these rules are. And they can be done away with completely.
4. A rose by another name wouldn't smell as sweet - our senses of taste and smell are easily influenced by our other observations about an object. Human perception is weird. In the same vein, bad naming of features invites more usage errors.