Beej's Guide to Git

Well, what's terrifying is that the guide is so long.

I am aware that beej's guides are typically quite comprehensive, but the vast nuances of git truly eluded me until this.

I guess Jujitsu would wind up being a much slimmer guide, or at least one that would be discoverable largely by humans?

It tells me that git is the wrong tool for the majority of people but it just happened to stick.

No. Git is a complex program but version control is an inherently complex problem that requires powerful tools. There's certain set of problems where, as a programmer, you're going to have to sit down and actually read the book.

The universe doesn't owe you an easy 10 minute video solution to everything, it's an annoying educational expectation that people seem to have developed. Some things are just that difficult and you have to learn them regardless.

No. Source control is not that complicated. Git is just bad. As an existence proof: Mercurial is much better and simpler.

I can teach someone who has never even heard of source control how to use Perforce in about 10 minutes. They will never shoot themselves in the foot and they will never lose work. There are certainly more advanced techniques that require additional training. But the basics are very easy.

Git makes even basic things difficult. And allows even experts to shoot their face off with a rocket launcher.

Git sucks. The best tool doesn't always win. If MercurialHub had been founded instead of GitHub we'd all be used a different tool. Alas.

Why I agree with many points you make... let's keep Perforce out of it. The amount of damage that program done to my source code, and the amount of pain caused by it in daily use tells me that 10 minutes will not cut it.

Here's a simple example of how people shoot themselves in the foot with Perforce all the time: it makes files you edit read-only, and then you run with your pants on fire trying to figure out how to save your changes, because the system won't let you do that. And then you do something dumb, like copy the contents of the file you aren't able to save someplace else, and then try to incorporate those changes back once you've dealt with the file that Perforce wouldn't save. And then end up with a merge conflict just working with your one single change that you are trying to add to your branch.

I never regretted never having to touch Perforce ever again. Just no.

You could have marked the file as not read-only and later reconciled. Or you could have checked the file out of Perforce. You would have had a merge conflict either way.

I mean I haven't even talked about how Git can't handle large files. And no Git LFS doesn't count. And Git doesn't even pretend to have a solution to file locking.

I'm not saying Perforce is perfect. There's numerous things Git does better. But Perforce is exceedingly simple to teach someone. And it doesn't require a 193 page guide. I can teach artists and designers how to use Perforce and not lose their work. A senior engineer who is a Git expert can still shoot themselves in the foot and get into really nasty situations they may or may not be able to get out of.

There's a reason that like 105% of AAA game dev uses Perforce.

So, there's a difference between how problems are common, how many of them are there, and how hard it is to deal with them.

So, is it possible to deal with Perforce marking files read-only? -- Yes. And it's not complicated, but the whole idea that that how the system should work is stupid. The problem is, however, exceptionally common. In my days working with Perforce there hadn't been a day when this problem didn't rear its ugly head.

So, maybe Perforce is scoring better on some metric, but in the day-to-day it generates so much hatred towards itself that I don't care if it can handle big files better than Git does. I only need to handle big files maybe a few times a year. And I prefer to get frustrated only twice or three times a year than to be fuming every time I have to touch files in my project.

I appreciate your hatred of Perforce. But I think you've let your hatred blind yourself to the argument I actually made. In my original comment I made two arguments:

1. Git is complicated 2. Perforce is so simple to use that I can teach an artist or designer who has never even heard of source control how to use it in 10 minutes.

Then you came in and said the way Perforce handles read-only files is stupid. You know what, I agree! That's a solvable problem. If Perforce wasn't acquired by a private equity firm maybe they'd actually work to make it better. Alas.

This isn't about Git vs Perforce. I post in all of these Git HN threads because I desperately want people to realize that Git sucks ass and is actually really bad. WE COULD HAVE SOURCE CONTROL THAT DOESN'T SUCK. IT'S POSSIBLE. I'm not saying that Perforce is that solution. I'm saying that Mercurial and Perforce are existence proofs that certain things are possible. Source control doesn't have to be complicated! It doesn't have to have footguns! It doesn't need a 189 page guide!