The phrase that I hear often when complaining about git: "Git good".
Git is too hard
151–160 of 821 posts
Re: Git is too hard
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an idiot, but I don't fully understand git. I am coding for a living, and I use git every day. I probably could sit down for a couple of days and fully understand how git works, but I've never needed it, I understand how basic git operations work, and I stay away from commands that I don't understand. With GitHub desktop you don't need to open the command line for any standard operations, I only need to use t…
I've definitely been the victim of my own git hubris. Once, when leaving a job, I decided to copy all of my local WIP branches to the server. I whipped out this fancy --mirror option I had just heard of: git push --mirror $remote Surprise! All branches on the remote repo got wiped. My local refs replaced the refs on the remote. Somehow I found the right commits floating around in the git ether. I was able to recreate…
this definitely shouldn't happen if shared branches are properly protected against non fastforward pushes
Re: Git is too hard
#153Git is not hard - the “questions” in the article are incomplete or not properly framed, that’s why they don’t have a straightforward answer. If you can’t be bothered to understand a crucial tool you use everyday I don’t know how you expect to be a professional developer. Hell even hobbyists have mastered git and are not running around complaining.
“Started using git when GitHub was in beta” what a newbie haha.
Saying that git’s distributed nature makes things harder - well it’s the entire nature and point of git to be distributed :)
People don’t want simpler, friendlier source control, this is why bzr failed and was abandoned.
Re: Git is too hard
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is - if you're not using some feature every month you won't remember how to do it anyway when you finally need to use it. So there's little point reading about exotic features upfront other than to know they exist. And which features are exotic depends on your workflow. It would help if git interface was consistent enough to make remembering this stuff easier. For example I never remember the exact option…
I would suggest it's far better to understand the data structures inherent in git and how those data structure changes are tracked and merged. Then almost all operations in git become clear. And as a side bonus it will probably make you a better coder.
How would knowing the structure (which I already do) help me remembering what was that option called?
Re: Git is too hard
#155Git is hard if you don't take the time to learn/teach it. As a checkmark on a resume, knowing git doesn't mean much. Most developers know how to branch, commit, push and pull. Maybe they know a little bit of reset to get themselves out of bad situations. We had one highly-skilled developer with a background in contributing to very unrelated FOSS join a frontend team once, adding a rule about avoiding merge commits in…
But that's my definition to hard, there was a thread recently about anyone being able to improve their chess skills by taking it seriously and learning- it doesn't mean that chess is not hard.
Re: Git is too hard
#156“Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.” — Isaac Wolkerstorfer http://twitter.com/agnoster/status/44636629423497217
What Hilbert space would that be?
Re: Git is too hard
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an idiot, but I don't fully understand git. I am coding for a living, and I use git every day. I probably could sit down for a couple of days and fully understand how git works, but I've never needed it, I understand how basic git operations work, and I stay away from commands that I don't understand. With GitHub desktop you don't need to open the command line for any standard operations, I only need to use t…
+1 These commands will get you 99% of the way: - git status - git branch - git pull - git add - git commit - git diff - git merge - git push - git checkout For everything else there's StackOverflow, but the info in there comes with the risk of being stale. -------------- Edit commit abaeb3b4: Add missing commands and improve formatting Edit commit 842babda: Add git checkout
I use git daily. I never use merge. I use git rebase, and its interactive version all day.
Re: Git is too hard
#158Re: Git is too hard
#159The article ought to be titled: 'Distributed VCS is a lot more complicated than centralised VCS'.
And I'd agree.
Re: Git is too hard
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 These commands will get you 99% of the way: - git status - git branch - git pull - git add - git commit - git diff - git merge - git push - git checkout For everything else there's StackOverflow, but the info in there comes with the risk of being stale. -------------- Edit commit abaeb3b4: Add missing commands and improve formatting Edit commit 842babda: Add git checkout
`git status` is required to determine which untracked files you need to add. And then, of course, `git add` would be need to be added to the list too. To add untracked files you could use interactive mode `git add -i` and forgo reading `status`. But you can also `git commit -p` if you only modified files and forgo the `add` step. And to give yourself a sense of the commit graph, these aliases come in handy [alias] lo…
Indeed, I forgot 'git status', and 'git add'
I've honestly ever felt the need, or had the requirement, to look at the graph.