Re: DWIM "git checkout frotz" to "git checkout -b frotz origin/frotz"

From: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Date: Jun 8, 2010, 07:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20100608072958.GA24302@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilccgKxO7YCTJYc5rTzhov5Tku2z8jSfWU_B4ui@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:25:07AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

>
> > And it makes me sad that you think it silly to even talk about it.
> 
> I don't think it's silly to note your concern, I think it's silly to
> put a fair amount of effort into a campaign for its removal, which is
> what you are doing.  If new points can be made, fair enough, but so
> far it seems mainly a lot of back and forth stating the same things
> over and over.

Since I started this, I feel responsible for responding to people's comments. I do not think I am doing anything wrong. So please forgive me for responding to you as well, even if you think it silly of me.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > I believe that it's because of things like this that many users
> > still consider git to be complicated and hard to use. That's what
> > really bothers me.
> 
> Why do you think that?  I mean, you could be right, but it's certainly
> conceivable that this feature causes users to consider git _simpler_
> to use, because it lets them think about local branches only.

Thinking about local branches only is wrong.

Let's assume the user "just wants to check out branch X." Such a use case has been mentioned previously in this thread. So they say "git checkout X", and voila, they get what they wanted.

It did what they meant it to do. Everybody is happy. But not for long.

Because the next time they "just want to check out branch X," they will remember, it's time for "git checkout X." But what's this? This is not what they wanted. It does not have the latest changes on branch X! Didn't they do the same thing they did last time?

No they did not, because last time they _created a branch_. Eventually, if they are lucky, they will learn in #git that they were supposed to "git merge <remote>/X." And they will think "WTF? Why do I have to _merge_? And what's this business about remotes? Why is git is so complicated?"

So all we did was delay the user's confusion, and make it worse, because now the mind model of "local branches only" they have developed, is broken.

Git uses slightly different semantics than other VCSs, especially when it comes to branches. And that often causes users to become confused. But I happen to think that git's branch model is superior, and easy to understand once you unlearn what you know from other VCSs.

But if we try to hide that fact and imitate other VCSs on the surface, that will only make it harder to learn.

Regards, Clemens