If someone is interested, the best book I've read on it is Pro Git. The chapters 2 and 3 explain pretty well this mess of branching and merging. But it's true that it takes a bit of patience to go over it all. 184.108.40.206 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Also take a look at GitFlow: A Successful Git Branching Model. Though Randall is correct there usually comes a time when it is easier to give up and "start again". 220.127.116.11 08:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to word of god it was on purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)#History 18.104.22.168 11:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- He also designed it in such a way that people often run into problems with commitment to detached heads, and typically deal with this by reflogging... 22.214.171.124 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
'Internally, Git works by saving the differences between various versions of the files, rather than creating a new copy each time the user "commits" the current version of the code.' - It is exactly the opposite. It stores whole files, or rather all committed pieces of data (blobs). See http://gitready.com/beginner/2009/02/17/how-git-stores-your-data.html 126.96.36.199 09:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)TK
- It is stored as diffs in pack file. Whole file (loose object) are packed automatically by default.
- See https://schacon.github.io/gitbook/7_the_packfile.html and https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-pack-objects.html
188.8.131.52 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you guys need to differentiate between the underlying data scheme, and the command line. The way git stores underlying data is indeed beautiful, but the command-line is the worst UI ever. You know how you switch to working on a different branch? "git checkout". You know how you revert the changes you've made to a file? "git checkout". You know how you make a new branch? "git checkout -b". If you're used to other systems, you'll find nearly every operations - even common ones - counterintuitively named. I work at Google and even here, every week someone near me screws up their respository enough that they have to save their work, nuke their repo, reapply their changes, and try moving forward again. I don't know why anyone puts up with this! (Actually I do - it's because if you're collaborating between companies, git does it better than anything else.) 184.108.40.206 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's not actually true. git checkout takes you to a node of development, as a convenience that can be either the entire code base (a branch) or a single file. You could remove the file you want to 'revert', stash all other changes, checkout HEAD and then pop the stash...or use the git checkout FILE shortcut. git checkout -b is just a shortcut so you don't have to do git branch; git checkout. 220.127.116.11 06:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I feel this article focuses on explaning git too much that it loses the point of the joke. We have Wikipedia to refer readers to ... The thing is, not just users who are unable to use git beyond a few basic commands, but also those who understand git often use some sort of "start over" method because an action looking perfectly legit got the repository into unusable state, where recovery is much more difficult than reapplying patches. For one of the most common, search for "detached head", for example - especially funny when git insists on falling into that state after checking out master which is in direct contradiction to what docs say when it happens. But I don't feel like rewriting that, sorry :-/ --kavol, 18.104.22.168 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel you've all been nerd-sniped. 22.214.171.124 19:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Pat
The problem is not about the working copy and about the branching tree structure and some git internals that is quite confusing. This 4 years old reddit post can be used as a funny reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/embdf/git_complicated_of_course_not_commits_map_to/
http://tartley.com/?p=1267 "One of the things that tripped me up as a novice user was the way Git handles branches. Unlike more primitive version control systems, git repositories are not linear, they support branching, and are thus best visualised as trees, upon the nodes of which your current commit may add new leaf nodes. To visualise this, it’s simplest to think of the state of your repository as a point in a high-dimensional ‘code-space’, in which branches are represented as n-dimensional membranes, mapping the spatial loci of successive commits onto the projected manifold of each cloned repository." 126.96.36.199 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Should someone mention how git is by default used through a terminal - which is often more confusing than a GUI for most people - and that while there are graphical shells for git, some people refuse to use them because they're not fully-featured? 188.8.131.52 11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The really sad part of all this is that if you work in a multi-dev environment and anyone on the team is doing what Cueball suggests, it negates every other user's ability to use the main trunk properly. Ericm301 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hasn't it got too extensive about git? I've never used git but quite understood the comedy. I just visited this page to know about git.txt and there's nothing about it but just long text that doesn't help whatsoever to understand the comic. 184.108.40.206 08:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree completely! I've stripped out the overlong discussion of git's features. --Slashme (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, the git.txt is not the part of the Git itself. I just added it to explanation. 220.127.116.11 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- "This comic is a play on how git, a popular version control system, is misused by people who have a very poor understanding of its inner workings."
Comically missing the point. That is NOT what the comic is about, that is a poor excuse from a fanboy. --18.104.22.168 12:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the verbose "explanation" misses the point. The reality is that git is a confusing mess from a user's point of view. It's a very nice and powerful design from a technical point of view yet one that will mostly confuse anyone who encounters it at first; most people are afraid of admitting it because they don't want to look dumb. There's beauty in a design that is user-friendly at its core, and git misses that mark. Ralfoide (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- The same can be said of Linux. It seems to be a common theme in Linus Torvalds' work. 22.214.171.124 23:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In pretty much every team I've worked I found there ends up being one "git expert" that raises above the rest and people continuously go see that person with "I don't know how to do X", to which the expert will often reply with a magic unheard-of-before git command line that looks pretty much like perl line noise. Ralfoide (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In what world are telephones not an electronic mean of communication ? 126.96.36.199 10:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not the point. The distinction was being made (ambiguously, perhaps) between electronic and vocal communication. We might naturally turn to telephones for the latter.--188.8.131.52 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
ExplainXKCD is usually amazing, but the explanation above is really "comically missing the point".
- Git has a very cool distributed architecture, but the user experience is much more complex than other revision control systems. TFS and subversion can be taught to junior developers in about 20 minutes, but it takes much longer to learn how to use Git’s basic features. It is very easy for Git to become deadlocked, which requires some obscure commands to fix. Unless you are an expert at Git, it is sometimes easier to delete your project and try again.
- There are things that Git does that other RCS don’t do. (I am not entirely sure what they are, to be totally honest. When the question is asked, the responses usually just talk about the architecture.) Git experts tend to like that the software is more powerful than other RCS systems, and some tend to be dismissive of how difficult other people find it to use. Many people (such as myself and Cueball) find the architecture cool, but are not Git experts.
- So this is the joke. There is a conflict between how experts typically TALK about Git, and how most users actually USE Git. The humor comes from having a character say things that many people think, but wouldn’t say out loud for fear of looking stupid.
Would it be worth polishing the above and adding it to the description, or would that just be flamebait? 184.108.40.206 16:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The title text may be referring to the famous saying: "Git is really pretty simple, just think of branches as homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space." 220.127.116.11 23:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, it's amazing how there are comments above defending git: those commentators lost the fact that XDCD is making fun of git because of it's idealistic view of source control doesn't map at all to reality, which in many cases, leads to user frustration and... dare I say it, lost data and lost productivity. Git is a joke and XKCD highlighted that well :) 18.104.22.168 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)