On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:52:47 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Even if I have a clear preference for GIT's _technology_, I still think > that the HG user interface is more convivial. I even been thinking > about writing something like an hg-like frontend to GIT from time to > time just so that GIT could then be better compared to (and actually > just used like) HG. I've actually been tempted to do the same myself. I really think that the technology is a more important criterion than the UI so the imagined hg-on-git interface would be an attempt to get people to look past the interface differences and look at the technology when deciding. But, then, I'd be guilty of creating another cogito, and I just argued against its existence in a separate thread. So I think we're better off just fixing the git interface. > I still think that the GIT user interface sucks in many ways. The > confusion between pull, fetch and push is still my favorite, along with > the locale vs remote branch issue. Maybe we'll better handle the branch > issue eventually, The --use-separate-remotes thing is technology in the right direction here. But I think it's another example of very useful stuff being improperly hidden behind another command-line option. Getting rid of the "remote-tracking branches" as user-visible branches possible for committing should be a priority. And that should be the default for everyone, not just people who happen to clone with this obscure option. Similarly, the reflog stuff was often trumpeted in the recent git vs. bzr debate. Why is that very useful functionality buried in a config file option and not just stored by default? > This is really what most people expect from such a command name based > on obvious historical reasons. The lack of any branch argument to > git-pull and git-merge could be defined as using the first defined > remote branch by default. Once again, there's lots of useful work on "branch configuration" that allows for commands to be able to get the "right" default repository for push and pull. I hope that that stuff can be enabled by default and not require --use-separate-remotes or manual configuration for people to benefit from it. I apologize if I sound like I'm ranting here. I love to see the many good improvements being made to git. It's just that there seems to be a sort of shyness about new features, (perhaps a fear of changing existing behavior?). When it improves the user experience, let's make the improvement the default and not add any more --make-this-command-do-what-it-really-should-have-always-done options. -Carl
Attachment:
pgpgNiep19xFW.pgp
Description: PGP signature