|
|
|
|
|
|
by beagle3
4654 days ago
|
|
|
Not sure what ender7 refers to. As far as I know, there are a few things in git that its maintainers think are missing - e.g., Linus mentioned that having a "generation" in a commit, which is 0 for the empty commit and 1+max(generation of ancestors), would have sped up some merge operations. Finding the history of a single file requires traversing the entire commit tree. But there is no "fundamental" problem or bad design choice - and in fact, this data can easily be cached without adding it into the protocol. EDIT: saw some complaints listed in this thread - they all have to do with UI, not with a design choice that is limiting use. Wrappers like "eg" and "legit", and macros, can be used to fix the UI (except no one agrees on what a better UI looks like). |
|
|
For many people, UI issues carry way more weight as "design choices that limit use" than issues such as speed, efficient disk usage, data normalization, etc.
"Wrappers like "eg" and "legit", and macros, can be used to fix the UI"
I disagree. There may be some that _could_ be used, if 'the internet' wasn't filled with helpful comments using the 'real' UI. As it stands now, there is no replacement that has sufficient market share to give users a good chance of finding questions to answers they may have. It is a bit like the early days of Windows, where "how do I..." Questions got answered by "that's easy. Exit to DOS..." (Linux on the desktop has a bit of a similar problem, but I think it is slowly outgrowing it)
"except no one agrees on what a better UI looks like".
That may be an indication that it really is hard (maybe even impossible) to find a good alternative UI hat does not leave out git features.