Git is the most appropriately named piece of software, ever

[nikkkom]

This is very incorrect. Good version management tools existed long before git was created.

So please name one.

 

[nsaspook]

https://arstechnica.com/information...ing-git-creating-1760-windows-builds-per-day/

Back in February, Microsoft made the surprising announcement that the Windows development team was going to move to using the open source Git version control system for Windows development. A little over three months after that first revelation, and about 90 percent of the Windows engineering team has made the switch.

 

[nikkkom]

So please name one.

Nothing?

 

[FactChecker]

Which version management systems are "good" is not well defined and is very debatable. But there have been dozens of systems that were much, much better than nothing.

 

[nikkkom]

I grant you than, for example, CVS is better than nothing. It does not make it "good" by any measure.

 

[Lord Crc]

I wouldn't label SVN "a disaster". We use it at work, and I've used it in several open source projects over the years, and while it can be a bit slow at times I've never lost code or anything like that due to SVN.

Git has too many internal implementation details leaking up into the user interface, and the user interface is obscure and error prone. Unlike with SVN I have lost code with Git. I'm pretty sure the core is better than say SVN, but it's draped in a thick layer of dang.

 

[DaveC426913]

Git has too many internal implementation details leaking up into the user interface, and the user interface is obscure and error prone.

The way I look at it, GIT is the implementation layer (analogous to DOS of yore). It does what it's supposed to do quite well. But it was never meant to be user-friendly.

It was always meant to have a user-friendly layer on top of it. It's just that no one seems to have come along and created one that gained sufficient popularity.

 

[onoturtle]

Sounds like I managed to dodge the bullet on difficulties with git :) I used it in my previous job for about 3 years. But I was a data scientist rather than a software engineer so it was likely other people who had to deal with the larger issues of our repos. It was easy enough to do the basic things of push, pull, create/switch branches. I did merge two branches once and that was successful. I was nervous about that because I recall how the engineers in a different previous job dreaded doing merges with Perforce (granted in their case they were merging several dev branches rather than my measly two).

But I agree the documentation is poor and I often just looked for tutorials online that are written more naturally. That's good enough for basic usage but I imagine there might not be much written for corner cases. I also thought undoing a push was a little wacky.

 

[FactChecker]

Git is very helpful for my personal use. If I limited myself to basic operations provided by the GUI, gitk, and a set of basic commands, I didn't get in trouble with Git. But any time I tried something new, I had to copy everything to a safe place.