[fsk]

Three words against git: Detached Head State

I view git as a sort of shibboleth.

You can't really understand how git works unless you understand trees as a data structure. That excludes all but the hardcore types.

Some designers and CSS experts need to use source control, but Git is too complicated for them.

Once you get a detached head state or corrupted repo, then you need a git expert to clean things up. I once committed while in a detached head state, and so git ate my changes and I had to reflog to recover them. That is just insulting.

At my job, I work with some designers now, and they always leave the test server in a detached head state.

But when I switched from the GitHub client (yuck) to the SourceTree client, most of my concerns went away.

[allemagne]

>You can't really understand how git works unless you understand trees as a data structure. That excludes all but the hardcore types.

DAGs and BSTs are taught in second year undergraduate classes where I'm at. What's hardcore about them? Serious question.

[to3m]

Non-programmers tend not to have taken undergraduate computer science classes!

[fsk]

Yes, that was my point. There are people who don't have a CS degree, that should use source control. For example, designers should use source control for their work. Explaining git to them is not feasible.

[allemagne]

My bad, I was thinking from a CS centric POV

[tekacs]

> unless you understand trees as a data structure

Well unless you understand DAGs, more like? Which is somewhat more unhelpful. :P

(given that merge commits have multiple parents)