Why many developers are struggling is beyond me, and so much git-hate, too. It is a powerful tool, but you can get started and a long time (or forever) around with few commands to accomplish your companies workflow - takes half an hour to learn these and put them in your notebook. If you struggle with git, how do you do with your programming language, IDE, debugger? All are vastly more complex.
Imo it is some internal objection (due to hate? laziness?) to deal with it.
Yes, the UI is not intuitive in all parts and partly ugly or from some viewpoints inconsistent, but that lately improved much. Nevertheless, complex is different. Much more effort went into mastering chosen shell, much more unintuitive is the IDE I have to use.. but those are tools, and that's my job.
WTF is "detached HEAD"? I've looked it up dozens of times, and as soon as I get past whatever I'm working on, I forget what it means.
Don't wanna be mean, but again I wonder how you learn and handle e.g. complex data structures (vs that super simple thing..) or other hard problems in whatever you do.
And on any team I've ever worked on, the branch history is a nightmare to look at.
Because teams have many people that don't care. I like git, shuffle commits around, rebase easily, conflicts are easy to resolve (there are merge tools that exist to help on top?) or would be hard with any other tool the same? (need to try jj). At least I have seen same shit happen with cvs, svn and also the short time I used hg - people are always at fight with their version control, I don't know why.
I'm glad if there is a new tool that finally solves this, buut, I doubt it ;) Let's see.
I want a dead simple VCS for small project use that doesn't come with so many footguns. I know simpler VCS exists, but without wide
Sorry, but lame excuse, just chose and try one and see, don't spread that much git-hate if you have not even tried, and mastered, another one? (And here you are with jj!)
I'm frankly embarrassed at my lack of Git mastery. I'm sure I could master it. And considering it's a tool that's integral to my daily work, it's kind of ridiculous that I'm not more comfortable with it.
I've written parsers and compilers, worked on image processing software for the NASA Mars rovers, managed global Kubernetes deployments for Fortune 500 companies, wrote trading desk software used on the NYSE trading floor, etc. Point being, I've worked on some seriously complex software. I'm 100% sure I could write Git itself without any trouble whatsoever (assuming I learned how it worked first).
I find Git to be unintuitive and overly-complex, and to use terminology that isn't obvious. You're probably right about it being an internal objection, but I assure you it's not due to laziness or an inability to deal with complexity. I'm not planning to use jj, because it's just Git with more complexity layered on top, despite their claims to the contrary.
Despite my dislike of Git, I'm still the go-to person for Git issues on the teams I manage. I can fix problems that arise and help others do things right. I still don't like it, and for whatever reason, the edge case scenarios don't stick in my memory.
i wonder where that comes from. i don't even have a fraction of the experience you have, yet i seem to be just fine with git. not an expert, but not having any trouble with it either, and also the go-to person for git pretty much anywhere i work. and i do like it!
is it my age? (i learned working with computers in the late 80s.)
the fact that i first had to work with CVS and subversion?
that i was an early adopter? (i was the first to use git at my job at the time, thanks to its good subversion integration)
have i just not seen how much better git could be? (am i happy with git out of lack of experience with better tools?)
or am i just different? (i seem to have no problem with weird programming languages or frameworks either (although there was this one perl job where i did struggle and ultimately had to give up because i had no help))
To emphasize just one thing in Git that is a source of constant user woes: if you're doing a rebase merge, --ours and --theirs are reversed. This is unintuitive without a deeper understanding of how rebase works, and rebase itself is a concept that is confusing to most users. Conflicts are never easy to resolve under the best circumstances. You shouldn't have to flip everything around just because you're doing a rebase merge instead of a regular merge. I can't tell you how many times I've had to help people with that. Maybe you think that makes total sense and is obvious, but the majority of devs I've worked with struggle with it. The fact that there are different types of merges is already confusing enough. Even the > and < symbols are reversed during a rebase merge, such that even if you know, your brain is twisting itself in knots because of the conflicting visual indicator.
I’m a native english speaker and I view “hate” and “can’t stand” as being synonyms. I can’t for the life of me draw a distinction between what either phrase means.
FWIW I thought "hate" and wrote "can't stand" because I intentionally wanted to tone it down just a little bit. "Hate" is a pretty biting word and I'm trying to use it less hyperbolically. The distinction is more one of politeness than anything in this case, so I agree with you.
Comments
Why many developers are struggling is beyond me, and so much git-hate, too. It is a powerful tool, but you can get started and a long time (or forever) around with few commands to accomplish your companies workflow - takes half an hour to learn these and put them in your notebook. If you struggle with git, how do you do with your programming language, IDE, debugger? All are vastly more complex.
Imo it is some internal objection (due to hate? laziness?) to deal with it.
Yes, the UI is not intuitive in all parts and partly ugly or from some viewpoints inconsistent, but that lately improved much. Nevertheless, complex is different. Much more effort went into mastering chosen shell, much more unintuitive is the IDE I have to use.. but those are tools, and that's my job.
Don't wanna be mean, but again I wonder how you learn and handle e.g. complex data structures (vs that super simple thing..) or other hard problems in whatever you do.
Because teams have many people that don't care. I like git, shuffle commits around, rebase easily, conflicts are easy to resolve (there are merge tools that exist to help on top?) or would be hard with any other tool the same? (need to try jj). At least I have seen same shit happen with cvs, svn and also the short time I used hg - people are always at fight with their version control, I don't know why. I'm glad if there is a new tool that finally solves this, buut, I doubt it ;) Let's see.
Sorry, but lame excuse, just chose and try one and see, don't spread that much git-hate if you have not even tried, and mastered, another one? (And here you are with jj!)
I'm frankly embarrassed at my lack of Git mastery. I'm sure I could master it. And considering it's a tool that's integral to my daily work, it's kind of ridiculous that I'm not more comfortable with it.
I've written parsers and compilers, worked on image processing software for the NASA Mars rovers, managed global Kubernetes deployments for Fortune 500 companies, wrote trading desk software used on the NYSE trading floor, etc. Point being, I've worked on some seriously complex software. I'm 100% sure I could write Git itself without any trouble whatsoever (assuming I learned how it worked first).
I find Git to be unintuitive and overly-complex, and to use terminology that isn't obvious. You're probably right about it being an internal objection, but I assure you it's not due to laziness or an inability to deal with complexity. I'm not planning to use jj, because it's just Git with more complexity layered on top, despite their claims to the contrary.
Despite my dislike of Git, I'm still the go-to person for Git issues on the teams I manage. I can fix problems that arise and help others do things right. I still don't like it, and for whatever reason, the edge case scenarios don't stick in my memory.
i wonder where that comes from. i don't even have a fraction of the experience you have, yet i seem to be just fine with git. not an expert, but not having any trouble with it either, and also the go-to person for git pretty much anywhere i work. and i do like it!
is it my age? (i learned working with computers in the late 80s.)
the fact that i first had to work with CVS and subversion?
that i was an early adopter? (i was the first to use git at my job at the time, thanks to its good subversion integration)
have i just not seen how much better git could be? (am i happy with git out of lack of experience with better tools?)
or am i just different? (i seem to have no problem with weird programming languages or frameworks either (although there was this one perl job where i did struggle and ultimately had to give up because i had no help))
To emphasize just one thing in Git that is a source of constant user woes: if you're doing a rebase merge, --ours and --theirs are reversed. This is unintuitive without a deeper understanding of how rebase works, and rebase itself is a concept that is confusing to most users. Conflicts are never easy to resolve under the best circumstances. You shouldn't have to flip everything around just because you're doing a rebase merge instead of a regular merge. I can't tell you how many times I've had to help people with that. Maybe you think that makes total sense and is obvious, but the majority of devs I've worked with struggle with it. The fact that there are different types of merges is already confusing enough. Even the > and < symbols are reversed during a rebase merge, such that even if you know, your brain is twisting itself in knots because of the conflicting visual indicator.
OP said 'I can't stand Git.' You seem to be obsessed with labeling that as 'hate' (3 times) and belittling people you think are not as smart as you.
I'd bet within the past week you were swearing at git. :-)
I’m a native english speaker and I view “hate” and “can’t stand” as being synonyms. I can’t for the life of me draw a distinction between what either phrase means.
FWIW I thought "hate" and wrote "can't stand" because I intentionally wanted to tone it down just a little bit. "Hate" is a pretty biting word and I'm trying to use it less hyperbolically. The distinction is more one of politeness than anything in this case, so I agree with you.
Good for you. The person I was replying to could stand to learn from your example. Where by 'could stand to' means would love to. :-)