| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I disagree completely. A little time spent on git is time wasted. Only |
| 4 |
> a lot of time spent on git is useful. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I disagree with this. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> git is to VCSs as assembler is to programming languages. To use either |
| 9 |
> effectively, you've got to have a complete grasp of the internal logic of |
| 10 |
> git/the processor. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I agree with this. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> the collected man pages of git (collected into an info file) |
| 15 |
> weigh in at 1.9 Mb. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And if you read them all 12 times it probably wouldn't help you out |
| 18 |
with using git one bit. I haven't read most of it, and I'd say that I |
| 19 |
grok it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You really need to take time to understand how git works, and that |
| 22 |
doesn't actually take that much time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The man pages are mainly used to figure out what Linus named the |
| 25 |
command line option you're looking for when he was drunk and creating |
| 26 |
a new subcommand. Git has a beautiful design and a horrible |
| 27 |
interface. If you understand the design you'll know that there must |
| 28 |
be a way to do something, but you'll spend 15min figuring out which |
| 29 |
command line utility does it best. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives