Git exposes all of its complexity at installation, which means that you are able to do any amount of damage from minute one. There are no cascading layers of abstraction that map onto the user's comfort level with git.
Git also doesn't prescribe workflows. Overtime, people have come up with standard workflows, but there are too many of them and they all have different mental models. The issue is that most of these workflows are only marginally better/worse than each other and don't necessarily provide additional functionality in any sense. It would be much better if there was only one way of doing things in git. It would make things marginally inconvenient for many, but the marginal loss of productivity would be more than made up by a consistent mental model and the increased reliability of the 'canon' workflow.
Last, and certainly my biggest complaint is the terrible UX and the semantics they convey. It is almost as though the creators went out of their way to have naming schemes at odds with natural language.
I hope someone builds a keras-like tool for git. Interoperable with the tensorflow (v1) that is the git underneath, but exposes a much easier and in most cases feature complete set of abstractions that work for 99% of its users.
I see a lot of criticism but not very much any suggestion that would avoid users having to learn how to rebase on an origin master branch or how to force push when they rewrite history. All the git interfaces, including github's web interface particularly, are fine to fix a typo but not really to iterate and create a perfect history of commits.
Based on my experience with users who did not have a programming background, there is no reason for letting them know about neither rebase nor rewriting history. If you are rewriting history, you are already ahead of the curve and you can use the command line. Commit, push, pull, branch and merge are all 90% of users need, and those last two are already an advanced topic.
For a good example of "user friendly git" I suggest taking a look at mercurial.
* It is too powerful
* It is not prescriptive
* It has horrifyingly bad UX/semantics
Git exposes all of its complexity at installation, which means that you are able to do any amount of damage from minute one. There are no cascading layers of abstraction that map onto the user's comfort level with git.
Git also doesn't prescribe workflows. Overtime, people have come up with standard workflows, but there are too many of them and they all have different mental models. The issue is that most of these workflows are only marginally better/worse than each other and don't necessarily provide additional functionality in any sense. It would be much better if there was only one way of doing things in git. It would make things marginally inconvenient for many, but the marginal loss of productivity would be more than made up by a consistent mental model and the increased reliability of the 'canon' workflow.
Last, and certainly my biggest complaint is the terrible UX and the semantics they convey. It is almost as though the creators went out of their way to have naming schemes at odds with natural language.
I hope someone builds a keras-like tool for git. Interoperable with the tensorflow (v1) that is the git underneath, but exposes a much easier and in most cases feature complete set of abstractions that work for 99% of its users.