Programming

I disagree, hard.

I disagree with the general conclusion - I think it's very easy to understand*: each repo has a graph of commits. Each commit includes the diff and metadata (like parent commits). There is a difference between you repo seeing the state of another repo (fetch) and copying commits from another repo into your repo (merge; pull is just a combination of fetch and pull). Tags are pointers to specific commits, branches are pointers to specific commits that get updated when you add a child commit to this commit. That's a rather small set of very clear concepts for such a complex problem.

I also disagree with a lot of the reasoning. Like "If a commit has the same content but a different parent, it’s NOT the same commit" is not an "alien concept". When I apply the same change to different parents, I end up with different versions. Which would be kinda bad for a Version Control System.

"This in turn means that you need to be comfortable and fluent in a branching many-worlds cosmology" - yes, if you need to handle different versions, you need to switch between them. That's the complexity of what you're doing, not the tool. And I like that Git is not trying to hide things that I need to know to understand what's happening.

"distinguish between changes and snapshots that have the same intent and content but which are completely non-interchangeable and imply entirely different flows of historical events" How do you even end up in a situation like that? Anyway, sounds like you should be able to merge them without conflicts, if they are in fact completely interchangeable?

"The natural mental model is that names denote global identity." Why should another repo care, which names I use? How would you even synchronize naming across different repos without adding complexity, e.g. if two devs created a branch "experimental" or "playground". Why on earth should they be treated as the same branch?

"Git uses the cached remote content, but that’s likely out of date" I actually agree that this can lead to some errors and confusion. But automation exists - you can just fetch every x minutes.

"Branches aren't quite branches, they're more like little bookmark go-karts." A dev describing what basically is just a pointer in this way leads to the suspicion that it might not be Git's mental model that is alien.

"My favorite version of this is when the novice has followed someone's dodgy advice to set pull.rebase = true" Maybe don't do stupid stuff you don't understand? We know what fetch is, we know what merge is. Pull is basically fetch & merge.

""Pull" presents the illusion that you can just ask Git to make everything okay for you" Just... what? The rest of the sentence doesn't really fix this error in expectations.

• except the CLI of course, but I can use GUI-tools for most tasks

I totally disagree. Git is not hard. The way people learn git is hard. Most developers learn a couple of commands and believe they know git, but they don't. Most teachers teach to use those commands and some more advanced commands, but this does not help to understand git. Learning commands sucks. It is like a cargo cult: you just do something similar to what others do and expect the same result, but you don't understand how it works and why sometimes it does not do what you expect.

To understand git, you don't need to learn commands. Commands are simple and you can always consult a man page to know how to do something if you understand how it should work. You only need to learn core concepts first, but nobody does. The reference git book is "Pro Git" and it perfectly explains how git works, but you need to start reading from the last chapter, 10 Git Internals. The concepts described there are very simple, but nobody starts learning git with them, almost nobody teaches them in the beginning of classes. That's why git seems so hard.

In this thread - tons of smart people thinking that the tools we use to replace "make a backup of a file on a server somewhere" should require entire reference books, as if that's normal.

Saying "it's a graph of commits" makes no sense to a layperson. Hell the word "diff" makes no sense. Requiring training to get something right is acceptable, but "using CVS" is a tiny tiny part of the job, not the whole job. I mean, even most of the commenters on this thread are getting small things wrong (and some are handwaving it away saying "oh that small detail doesn't matter").

Look, git is hard. It's learnable, but it's hard. The concepts are medium hard to understand, and the way it does things is unique and designed for distributed, asynchronous work - which are usually hard problems to solve.

git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.

(source)

Edit: but to actually have content in this comment, I'm not sure the mental model is the problem. It's not that alien that a good explanation wouldn't help, but it took a long time for git to start paying any sort of attention to "human readability." It was and still is in a way "aggressively technical" and often felt like it purposefully wanted to keep anybody but the most UNIX-bearded kernel hackers from using it. The man pages were rarely helpful unless you already understood git, the options were very unintuitively named, etc etc. And considering Linus' personality, I'm not exactly surprised.

With a little bit of more thought on how to make it more usable right from the start, I'm not sure it'd have such a reputation as it has now. The reason why I think this endofunctor joke is so funny is that that sort of explanation to "simplify" git wouldn't have been at all out of place – followed by the UNIX beards scoffing at the poor lusers who didn't understand their obviously clear description of what git branches are.

My favorite version of this is when the novice has followed someone's dodgy advice to set pull.rebase = true, then they pull a shared branch that they're collaborating on, into which their coworker has just merged origin/main. Instant Sorcerer's Apprentice-scale chaos!

Why are you doing that? Don't do that.

I honestly don’t get why folks dislike rebase. I use it constantly, especially to squash commits so that my pull requests are a single commit that can be reverted easily.

Git Koans

I only stick with these:

• pull
• add
• commit
• push

Easy.

I might be suffering from stockholms syndrome here, but my prefered ways of working with git are the cli and the fugitive vim plugin which is a fairly thin wrapper around the cli. It does take a middle ground approach on hiding the magic and forcing you to learn the magic which I suppose can be confusing for beginners when you work collaboratory and something happens that forces you to go beyond pull/add/commit/push

In my (admittedly limited) experience, mercurial is much more intuitive than git. I really dislike that git branches are only tags on the heads and completely ephemeral. It favours creating a single clean history instead of preserving what actually happened.

Isn't It Obvious That C Programmers Wrote Git