I can't be the only experienced #SoftwareEngineer who thinks #git blows, right?
Source control peaked with #SVN.
@LouisIngenthron Yeah UX is poor for sure. Even so, once I integrated the peculiarities and made them habit, it works pretty well in practice and I kind of like it. Stockholm syndrome maybe.
@ambihelical My biggest issue is that all the verbs are made up and make no sense in context. You basically have to learn a whole new language just to use it.
In SVN, you check out the source and commit your changes. That's it.
In Git, though, there's "check out" and "pull" and "fetch" and not only do they all do different things, but they do different things in different contexts.
Likewise, the fact that there's both "commit" and "push" and *they* do different things too!
And then there's the file commands... "remove" "discard" "ignore" and "revert" all do similar, but slightly different things.
And the idea of having both local and remote branches is just crazy over-complication. You only need one or the other.
The whole system seems like it's designed to confuse people. I could go on and on.
@LouisIngenthron I agree with everything but local/remote branches. I need local branches for experiments that no one else needs to see, I don't think local should be the default though.
The sad thing is the git internals have a pretty good design, but the commands are a mess.
@LouisIngenthron Did that back in the day. Do not want to go back to it.
@ambihelical Yeah, but you can do a "local branch" just by checking out the source into a different folder than the main one you work in.