Re: New sync'd branch

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:

> Finally, git's UI is horrid: complex, barroque, with plenty of
> opportunities for shooting yourself on the feet.

But there is the reflog.  After shooting yourself in the foot, you
always have the option of going back to before the shot.

Yes, it is reasonably easy to blow up some operation terribly if you
don't know what you are doing.  Because git has lots of power.  But you
always can tell it: "Ok, this was a complete messup.  Give me back what
I had 20 minutes ago".

It is very hard to actually do something which can't be undone.  You
have to really try.

> Those kernel guys are not the right people for designing UIs.

Which is why there are different user interfaces on top of the raw git.
git-gui does quite a few nice things, various Emacs modes as well.

> Some day people will recognize this and will see today's massive
> leaning towards git as a mistake originated on juvenile reverence
> towards its original author and on simplistic metrics like raw speed,
> putting aside a critical and objetive assessment of its merits
> compared against the alternatives.

You underestimate git.  And you underestimate "people".  Torvalds
usually does several hundreds of merges a day.  And that's not just
because of "raw speed", but also because of high-quality merging
strategies.  Moving Emacs towards Bazaar was a real stress test for
Bazaar, and still is.  In contrast, using the git mirrors and
repositories was not a terrible strain.  Most problems were about how to
best preserve (and/or reinvent) history when converting to git.

-- 
David Kastrup