[dspillett]

> Let's not start to bend reality just to back up some narrative because after reading a N hours documentation everything is OK.

If you expect everything to be as easy as pie without needing to make a little effort to read a bit of documentation, then perhaps the problem is not the product but the fact that you are in the wrong industry, or the wrong role within that industry, for you. Have you considered a management track?

Git is intended to make certain patterns possible, and practical. “Easy for people won't read some documentation” was never one of its design goals.

[kreco]

You conveniently cherry picked the least relevant part of my message.

No one said everything should be easy as pie.

There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new.

[account42]

> There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new.

Yes, there are alternatives that aren't used by anyone except dedicated fans. If they had the wide user base that git enjoyed you'd hear just as many complaints about them.

[jamesnorden]

Because people actually use Git instead of whatever you mean.

[kreco]

This is irrelevant to the topic.

I didn't ask why git was widely used. I didn't say git was useless.

Again, there were version controls before git came out.

[echoangle]

I think the point was that a lot of people are confused by git because a lot of people use it. Meaning that the other software where people don’t complain would get the same amount of complaints if it had as many users as git has.

[BeetleB]

> If you expect everything to be as easy as pie without needing to make a little effort to read a bit of documentation

Classic strawman.