I get the same impression from all the git-related submissions. It's like I'm being told that "this car is great. Just remember to jerk the door handle when you open it, give the window a nudge with your elbow before you open it, and the wipers will work extra well if you enable air-conditioning at the same time.
It makes it sound like default, basic git is either broken (merge/rebase) or very constrained for general purposes.
I think it also has to do with the fact that "productivity" tips are conflated with getting-it-right articles. You don't need to alias all commands for git to work, even though it might help your workflow - or not; YMMV.
I've spent a lot of time thinking through this problem. I agree Git is broken. So is Mercurial, Bazaar, subversion and CVS — they're just different flavors of broken (as in they each taste less broken to different groups of people).
Version control is inherently a difficult problem to conceptualize. Distributed version control is probably the biggest step forward VCS have ever seen — but it comes at a price of added complexity on top of a complex subject as is.
But then again that's why I don't focus on "making git better" — I try and focus on making collaboration and source control better. Stop trying to build aliases or tweaks to git's command line... and maybe try and build a great source control tool that just happens to use Git as it's storage engine.
Comments
I get the same impression from all the git-related submissions. It's like I'm being told that "this car is great. Just remember to jerk the door handle when you open it, give the window a nudge with your elbow before you open it, and the wipers will work extra well if you enable air-conditioning at the same time.
It makes it sound like default, basic git is either broken (merge/rebase) or very constrained for general purposes.
I think it also has to do with the fact that "productivity" tips are conflated with getting-it-right articles. You don't need to alias all commands for git to work, even though it might help your workflow - or not; YMMV.
I've spent a lot of time thinking through this problem. I agree Git is broken. So is Mercurial, Bazaar, subversion and CVS — they're just different flavors of broken (as in they each taste less broken to different groups of people).
Version control is inherently a difficult problem to conceptualize. Distributed version control is probably the biggest step forward VCS have ever seen — but it comes at a price of added complexity on top of a complex subject as is.
But then again that's why I don't focus on "making git better" — I try and focus on making collaboration and source control better. Stop trying to build aliases or tweaks to git's command line... and maybe try and build a great source control tool that just happens to use Git as it's storage engine.
Watch this video and you will become enlightened as to why this is the case:
[Linus Torvalds on Git] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8