81–90 of 143 posts
I don't understood the suicidal git thing... Also of course I had to test the help commands! git branch --help opens man git branch -h throws those short commandline help summaries. Interestingly, -h does not mention -h itself or --help, so the only way to know that --help exists, is someone else telling you, you will never find on your own.
$ git -h branch
[blargh]A lot of these are just plain wrong though or have a good reason and it makes me sad because I know Steve Losh uses a lot of Mercurial which I think has a much worse UI. 1. Silence: you can't alias built-in commands — for good reason. You don't change the defaults of commands, that's just going to cause problems with scripts. Why is it ignored silently? For starters because new git versions can add a command that wou…
Your critique seems to be based off comparing git to mercurial and declaring that git is designed better. I don't think you're going to see a ton of disagreement with that in this community. You make good points too, with context a lot of those commands make more sense. However well designed software shouldn't need the context. Well designed software is intuitive. We shouldn't need to know the intricacies in the git…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Branches are just mutable pointers to commits. You're imposing a mental model onto Git that simply isn't present. Git is revolutionary, in part, because instead of asking "what's the mental model we want to emulate and then never mind if that matches the implementation", they gave developers credit that they can understand a handful of simple concepts and made the actual design and data model as simple as possible. P…
You're making the same mistake as GP. I love Git, and I know that asking "what branch was this commit on" makes no sense. My point is that some users have different requirements as to what a DVCS should provide. If Git can't fulfill some of these requirements, then just say "Git can't do this" rather than beating around the bush.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may seem like a joke, but having used Hg a little bit, I do think it has a superior interface. The error messages are clear, the commands are intuitive. The command addremove is genius. But I still use git because I already grokked it before I learned hg.
I learned hg before git and the experience of switching to git was shockingly bad. I'm comfortable in both now and the big thing I'd miss if I went back to hg would be git stash (and I'm sure there's a hg plugin for it).
The 'Only the Gods' one seems weird to me; maybe I just don't understand Git well enough, but it seems like that one's just a case of failing to understand what a branch is . A particular commit isn't made 'on' a branch, so to speak; it's just a SHA hash that has a particular SHA as a parent. And then a branch is a pointer to a particular SHA. So there's no way to know which branch a commit originated 'on', merely wh…
What you described is how git thinks of branches. Most developers think of branches as something they commit to. Therefore they are surprised when later they can't tell which branch they committed to. This could trivially be fixed with porcelain that puts the name of the branch the commit was made to at the end of the commit message. The issue of branches not really being branches is not unique to git; most VCs I've…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://mercurial.selenic.com/
This may seem like a joke, but having used Hg a little bit, I do think it has a superior interface. The error messages are clear, the commands are intuitive. The command addremove is genius. But I still use git because I already grokked it before I learned hg.
Why? I find that in the middle of a big project I have lots of stupid files strewn about that I absolutely don't want checked in (TODO lists, patches I'm considering, copies of large log files I'm investigating, etc). I always add things explicitly and delete explicitly, otherwise I'd get random junk checked into my repo. How do you keep your repo clean enough to actually use automatic commands like that?
I don't understood the suicidal git thing... Also of course I had to test the help commands! git branch --help opens man git branch -h throws those short commandline help summaries. Interestingly, -h does not mention -h itself or --help, so the only way to know that --help exists, is someone else telling you, you will never find on your own.
-h is not a valid option. You could put --floogahbar in there and it'll give you the help by way of response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes. Otherwise command line scripts will start doing horrible things. It was never intended that you can alias builtins, the only reason you might think you can is because it is allowed in mercurial which I think is a horrible idea. You should understand what you are responding to before typing your answer. Say today I create an alias “boom = ” and next week git introduces a boom command. Now my alias is ignored, m…
>> Git gives some very stupid hints “branhc is not a git command, did you mean branch?” it should also warn me when I defined an invalid alias. This is the thing that really infuriates me - having a message from my tool that tells me there's an error is one thing, but offering a (frequently incorrect) correction forces me stop and try to figure out why this suggestion was offered, since it frequently has NOTHING to d…
It can do this if you tell it do. The following tells git to wait 10 tenths of a second before executing the corrected command, giving you time to cancel if it is incorrect.
git config --global help.autocorrect 10