So multiple people did a git reset --hard origin/master and nobody complained or checked what and why this was done? That's not "one data scientist with the wrong command" but the whole team that fucked up hard IMHO.
I think you just sold their pitch with this comment... I, like many many people here, have done quite a bit of product design. What do you call it when a bunch of people use your product, and it breaks for several of them? That generally indicates your product is weak, or has a very rough UI.
For many of us, the story rings true. We have ourselves had horror stories that we did manage to recover from after a few hours of fearfully googling, and we know of other, less capable friends and colleagues who were unable to recover the data and who just accepted the loss.
You think Microsoft losing GitHub repos is more likely than poor bastards trying to make sense of the git command line? You think these guys are going to do a worse job with their centralized service?
People have lost data on GitHub from repositories being copyright striked for example.
At least with git, every developer has a copy of the full history so full data loss is impossible really. What happens if this company folds? You're left with some proprietary repo that you suddenly have to workout how to self host.
It just doesn't make sense when compared to just learning git which is definitely the most fruitful thing a developer could learn at the start of their career.
It's a pitch. The story has obviously been embellished and polished and condensed, ready public consumption. Being pedantic against it is not productive.
Politely disagree. It’s productive because hopefully future teams who launch on HN ask each other, “Is what we’re saying true?” during all those polishing and condensing sessions. If they don’t, the risk is crossing a line that damages the reputation of the team and undermines months if not years of hard work.
To put into perspective, that was in 2014 :D There were no branch protections, and git was even harder to use. Plus everyone was new at git, obviously (we started in 2013 with mercurial, which was still a legit thing to do, and switched to git).
Multiple individuals with similar problems would tend to imply systematic inadequate training. Or the enterprise concerned adopting an inappropriately complex system for its intended userbase.
Or, git is both very complex and very useful, and a large portion of its users have a poor understanding of git but enough for it to be a useful tool. If you want to do source control (which you do), then you’re investing time into learning git and/or fixing git, or maybe using a project like this.
You literally just said what GP said in different words, but prefaced it with "Or" as if it's a disagreement. What you said boils down to "inadequate training".
We both agree that they didn’t know the tool, but GP seems to blame them for deciding to use the tool without training. I was more or less defending their choice to use git, while also acknowledging the potential of a tool like Diversion. My interpretation of GP was that it doubled down on git, while claiming that anyone using git without understanding it is “doing it wrong”, which I agree with in principle but not in practice, as I argued in my initial comment.
One is that the possibility of overwriting history / etc is a really powerful and useful feature, but one that should only be used with some consideration, hence being gated behind the scary '--force'. The fact that git provides one the ability to discard and overwrite commits for a ref shouldn't be an endorsement of doing so freely. I'm glad git has this capability though and any "git alternative" would be all the worse if it didn't provide it, IMO.
Two is that if the concern is git's usability - i.e. the "problem" here is that it's too "easy" for users to do destructive actions accidentally - well, there are ways to solve that other than to reinvent all of git. There are plenty of alternative git UIs already, and an alternative UI is a great way to be "wire compatible" for existing users but still help protect those novice users from footguns.
That all makes sense and mirrors many of my own thoughts.
Though I'll say that "--force" isn't necessarily a "scary-sounding" option name unless you're used to Unix CLI naming conventions.
Further, the warnings git gives you about this are virtually inscrutable if you don't already understand what's happening.
A good interface to "blowing away history" would give you a brief summary of what will actually be gone, e.g.:
"If you go ahead with this overwrite, the following changes will be completely removed from the repo:
a3bf45: Fix bug in arg parsing
22ec04: Add data from 2024-01-17 scraper run
...
Are you SURE you want to completely destroy those commits? (Y/n)"
and if user says "Y", output should log all removed commits and also say:
"These commits can still be recovered until <date>. If you realize you want these back before then, run the following:
<command to restore commits>"
Generally, I think it's a mistake to put UI improvements in a secondary tool.
If there are issues that need fixing, get those changes in the canonical project, because layered patches on top will always be short of maintainers and behind the main project.
> Are you SURE you want to completely destroy those commits? (Y/n)
While there is a lot of user interfaces that could be improved, I believe the above have empirically been shown to be inferior to the alternative "re-run this command but add scary option to proceed".
Users habitually answer "Y" to questions like the above all the time. And certainly after a few times it becomes routine for anyone. But having to re-enter the command and type some a whole word like "overwrite", "force" or "i-know-what-im-doing" is a whole other roadblock. The example is especially ill-chosen to have Y as the default option.
Any operation in git that destroys so many commits will include a list of commits that is destroyed, similar to what is suggested here, and trying to push the resulting repository will say exactly how many commits will be removed, and require rerun with force option (together with the necessary privileges). So reality is already not far from what you suggest, but with more fail safes.
You make a good point about "Y/n" being more dangerous than refusing and requiring an explicit option be passed.
The clear warning about what commits will be lost is not at all how I remember force-push working.
That said, I usually use magit in emacs for git and understand the force options well, so I haven't actually looked at the standard push failure warning in years. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, or perhaps it's been improved in recent versions.
It doesn’t overwrite the commute though. It inserts new ones and resets the branch pointer … doesn’t seem like you’d need a whole new tool to mitigate this - just an automatically generated tag or something when you —force-push - would be easy to do if there was demand for it …
Yeah, I can’t see how use of a —-force flag by people who didn’t know what they were doing is enough of a reason to switch to a different VCS (let alone write one). The issue was people using a tool in a way that they shouldn’t have. Which isn’t a technical problem, but a training problem. You can’t fix people problems with technology, so I’m sure there will be other footguns in this new system that someone else will figure out how to almost lose data.
Git is great in that it is flexible and powerful. But that power leaves some tools open to people who don’t know what they are doing… that’s the trade off.
(Now something that better handles non-code assets and large data files, I’d be much more willing to listen to that pitch.)