Git is Terrible

If I say that my professional life has spanned RCS, CVS, Mercurial and Git, this tell you something (depressing) about my age.

Like everyone else, I'm now a git user, but I still say that Mercurial was the most elegant of the bunch, at least in terms of its emmiently predictable and well-designed CLI, even if the software itself gave up the ghost years ago.

Back in the day, when version control systems were still duking it out, I used to try and defend mercurial to rabid git fans, mostly to no avail. I always felt that I was at a bit of disadvantage in those conversationa (cue the git fans yelling "Yeah, cuz mercurial SUCKS!"), because I was always willing to concede, despite appreciating mercurial's virtues, that git actually did have its strengths as well as its weaknesses, while the git fans were rarely so magnanimous with any other VCS.

It has to be said: git is blazing fast, with a very flexible branching model and large mindshare. The branching model and the existence of things like github are probably, in fact, the principal strengths of git, and the principal weaknesses of mercurial. It's a good thing too, because as far as the CLI is concerned, git is simply garbage.

CLI Warts

The fact that there exists a site like the git man page genertaor should tell you something about git's CLI.

You use git branch to list and create branches, but you use git checkout to switch to a branch, unless it's a new branch, in which case it can also be used to also create the branch if you supply it with the -b option.

So far this isn't actually that bad. The checkout command is your moving around command - you can use it to switch to an arbitrary commit, for example. The branch command is your branch management command. The -b option to the checkout command does add a certain wart to the whole thing - it would be more intuitive, in my opinion, if the branch command created and switched you to the branch automatically - but so far it's nothing horrible, even if the term "checkout" here seems a bit more general than one might be used to.

Ah! But you also use git checkout when you want to revert a file, i.e. undo the local changes you just made to it. I understand the underlying conceptual link between the two use cases, but it's not the normal way I usually think about these operations. There is, in fact, a git revert comand but, surprisingly, it doesn't actually work on files - it's used to create commits which undo (revert) other commits. Of course, if you want to just revert all the local changes in your repo, you can do so with the git reset command, which comes in hard and soft flavours, like ice cream, and which also doesn't work on individual files, but which provides a plethora of options, mostly revolving around whether your changes are staged or not.

Oh yeah! Git also provides a staging area, which I've personally found of limited value, especially when you consider how easy it is to amend commits. But your mileage may vary on that front.

And don't even get me started on git rebase, the swiss amry chainsaw of history editing commands, which appears to be specially designed to mess up your repo.

Don't misunderstand me. I use git every day - sometimes even effectively! - and I would never use mercurial on a new project. It's just that I sometimes think that there are git fams who use it because of its difficulties, rather than in spite of them - possibly the same kind of people who enjoy competing in Obfuscated C contests. They are a flavour of nerd to which I don't really relate.