Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hypothesis 1296 days ago
Seems like a standard git thing: have a process that works in a specific, but not a “helpful” way and also have a undiscoverable setting to configure said process.

Is that why people keep building UIs and wrappers for git?

2 comments

Having lots of config is fine, even good, if you ship sane defaults. Frankly most OSS flunks this, and git is one of the biggest offenders.
Git has so many users that changing defaults is pretty tricky. They have done it in the past but usually over multiple release cycles with a deprecation window.
Maybe they should introduce an option to configure which set of defaults is used.

e.g.

defaults=traditional adopts current defaults (that maximise backward compatibility)

defaults=latest adopts latest recommended defaults (better out-of-box user experience, but may break things which depend on the traditional settings)

Then at least there is only one setting to change to get sane defaults.

Maybe even, defaults=VERSION to give you latest defaults as per that version.

> Maybe they should introduce an option to configure which set of defaults is used.

> ...

> Then at least there is only one setting to change to get sane defaults.

I suspect that, much like C++, there will be fierce debate over exactly what constitutes sane defaults.

Maybe there could be a "C++ style defaults" set of configuration, as default?
Ah yes, like how nginx’s defaults still like to pretend it’s early 2000s, everyone uses dialup, and nobody could possibly want their website to serve more than a handful of requests per hour.
Like Apache's default settings working well for a site that gets no more than one visitor a minute.
Yep. The default options are usually the wrong ones.