1095

submitted 7 months ago by JPDev@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

180 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 21 points 7 months ago

Honestly, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of git users never really bother with the git history in any way that would be hindered by merging.

Git has a ton of powerful features, but for most projects they don't matter at all. You want a distributed consensus, that's it. Bothering yourself with all those advanced features and trying to learn some esoteric commands is frankly just overhead. Yes, you can solve great problems with them, but these problems almost never occur, and if they do, using the stupid tools is faster overall.

[-] chamomile@furry.engineer 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

@agressivelyPassive @technom That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMO. Well-structured commit histories with clear descriptions can be a godsend for spelunking through old code and trying to work out why a change was made. That is the actual point, after all - the Linux kernel project, which is what git was originally built to manage, is fastidious about this. Most projects don't need that level of hygiene, but they can still benefit from taking lessons from it.

To that end, sure, git can be arcane at the best of times and a lot of the tools aren't strictly necessary, but they're very useful for managing that history.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

I'd still argue, that the overhead is not worth it most of the time.

Linux is one of the largest single pieces of software in existence, of course it has different needs than the standard business crap the vast majority of us develop.

To keep your analogy: not every room is an operating room, you might have some theoretical advantages from keeping your kitchen as clean as an OR, but it's probably not worth the hassle.