I really hate git a lot and wish I didn't have to use it. I find that it gets in the way and adds complication without providing compensatory benefits. I consider it a step backwards in version control.
I've often wondered why I seem to be in the minority on this opinion. Most devs seem to be OK with it, and many love it. I have no idea why.
The only thing I can think of is that git operates in a very specific way and either your brain is in sync with that way or it isn't.
One thing I disagree with in the article:
> More specifically, it doesn't work offline
It absolutely does. Maybe the author is confusing git with one of the bit-based services like github?
> It absolutely does. Maybe the author is confusing git with one of the bit-based services like github?
That was the most confusing paragraph. It says that “pull request” merges aren’t part of Git or something. Of course the merge itself is part of Git. I certainly would have heard something by now if people were getting different merge results when using GitHub compared to git(1).
Also
> Most of that distributed history gets thrown away when I do a squash.
Step (1) use squash; step (2) complain that squash throws the history away.
I've often wondered why I seem to be in the minority on this opinion. Most devs seem to be OK with it, and many love it. I have no idea why.
The only thing I can think of is that git operates in a very specific way and either your brain is in sync with that way or it isn't.
One thing I disagree with in the article:
> More specifically, it doesn't work offline
It absolutely does. Maybe the author is confusing git with one of the bit-based services like github?