Legit. Git for humans • Hacker News Board

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#11

Post by karamazov » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:52 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #6

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

I take offense to the "just" and the "sugar". You making sound like something bad for your health. An alternative syntax can make: 1) usage simpler 2) multiple step processes turn to one step 3) commands easier to remember 4) less error prone (or the opposite, depending on the specifics of the new syntax). So, no, this is not " just syntactic sugar " this is "new syntax", that is: an alternative command line user int…

The phrasing is intentional - a new syntax needs to be substantially better (as opposed to slightly better) than the old one to justify adding an additional standard.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#12

Post by arthurbrown » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:53 PM UTC

orblivion wrote: post #7

I hope the developer thought very carefully about how to handle doing operations starting from unusual states. "# Switches to branch. Stashes and restores unstaged changes." I guess I can't think of anything in particular, but I feel like something unexpected could go wrong here. (I didn't know you could pop a the last stash that was made on a given branch?)

It seems like the use case he's optimizing for here is if you're accidentally on the wrong branch, and need to move your working changes over to the correct branch.

Personally, I almost always use stash if I'm not quite ready to commit, but need to quickly fix a bug that takes precedence over whatever I'm currently working on. I stash what I'm doing, fix it, and them come back. Some of these operations seem at odds with my workflow.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#13

Post by reinhardt » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:54 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

I hope so. Lack of syntax sugar is "just" what forces me to stick with mercurial + hg-git.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#14

Post by MatthewPhillips » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:55 PM UTC

For those, like me, that had never heard of pip:

http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pip

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#15

Post by Jach » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

I think the only two commands from this I like are `git sprout newbranch` and `git unpublish branch`. But only because I think `git checkout -b newbranch` and `git push origin :branch` are stupid syntaxes for doing what they do.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#16

Post by MatthewPhillips » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

alexchamberlain wrote: post #9

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

I'd have to agree. Git is very Unix - simple commands do one simple thing - it doesn't need complicating by opaque commands that do lots of things at once.

But Git commands map to what is going on in the code, which isn't necessary. I think an effort to make a true CLI for git should be encouraged. For example:

  git push

Pushes everything, in every branch.

  git pull

Whoops, won't let me do that without providing a branch.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#17

Post by Jach » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 2:00 PM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #14

For those, like me, that had never heard of pip: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pip

For those who don't want to click:

pip: because creating a replacement for easy_install was simpler than creating easy_uninstall.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#18

Post by eaurouge » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 2:01 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #6

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

I take offense to the "just" and the "sugar". You making sound like something bad for your health. An alternative syntax can make: 1) usage simpler 2) multiple step processes turn to one step 3) commands easier to remember 4) less error prone (or the opposite, depending on the specifics of the new syntax). So, no, this is not " just syntactic sugar " this is "new syntax", that is: an alternative command line user int…

Looks like it's just aliases. You might as well just use 'git alias'. There's no need for a new universal set of commands - it defeats the idea of configuring your very own Git.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#19

Post by alexchamberlain » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 2:04 PM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #16

alexchamberlain wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to agree. Git is very Unix - simple commands do one simple thing - it doesn't need complicating by opaque commands that do lots of things at once.

But Git commands map to what is going on in the code, which isn't necessary. I think an effort to make a true CLI for git should be encouraged. For example: git push Pushes everything, in every branch. git pull Whoops, won't let me do that without providing a branch.

Erm... push behaviour can be changed using config and will be changed in the next release to only push the current branch.

My git pull pulls the current branch...

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#20

Post by knowtheory » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 2:08 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #11

batista wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take offense to the "just" and the "sugar". You making sound like something bad for your health. An alternative syntax can make: 1) usage simpler 2) multiple step processes turn to one step 3) commands easier to remember 4) less error prone (or the opposite, depending on the specifics of the new syntax). So, no, this is not " just syntactic sugar " this is "new syntax", that is: an alternative command line user int…

The phrasing is intentional - a new syntax needs to be substantially better (as opposed to slightly better) than the old one to justify adding an additional standard.

Incremental and clarifying progress is always beneficial.

I am on the fence as to whether this is clarifying or not. Git's problem is not just that the command structure is... esoteric, it's that once you're off the golden path, finding your way back onto the path is extraordinarily difficult.

I am unclear as to what extent legit mitigates the second (thornier) problem.