Stan whines about Git¶
Git is the most commonly used distributed, non-linear version control system. It has taken off for a reason, namely its competition doing a lot of things wrong. This does not mean, however, that Git couldn’t be better.
Reliance on Linux optimizations as a part of overall design¶
This is most apparent on Windows, but it affects Linux, BSD and other versions too. Git works on Windows, mind you, but it’s way slower than it could be, because of its Linux heritage. What does that manifest in, you ask?
Git uses filesystem as a general database. This is exceptionally slow on Windows, because Windows assumes the filesystem is used for storing, well, files of the user, not individual tiny information chunks.
Git is composed of many separate tools that call each other. It is likely that Git redesigned to work in a Busybox way would be faster everywhere.
Git doesn’t deal well with anything but line based source code. Wait, they’re popular on Linux, but that doesn’t have much to do with optimizations, does it?
Reliance on line-based source code¶
It is understandable that the initial design for Git focused on line-based source code; coming up with something handling arbitrary binary formats would be basically impossible, given how crazy something like ZStandard is. That said, if Git has any plugins for improving support for binary formats, for instance ones with simple structure directly corresponding to a text file, like, for instance, binary JSON, I’m not aware of it, and given the popularity of Git itself I think it’s fair to assume such a thing is not popular.
This is way worse than it initially appears because it leads to a feedback loop. People won’t even consider making binary source code of stuff if they’re using Git. In turn, Git won’t improve support for these once again.
Rebasing and cherry picking¶
This is something that some people apparently love, but to me it partially defats the purpose of VCS. Merging stuff in should be enough for constructing things. If you want to skip the development history, skip it wholesale. These fake versions inbetween are fake.
The counterpoint is that one doesn’t need to deal with rebasing in their repo. Except, one doesn’t need to deal with Git either under that logic. Unless you control the repo completely, you can’t deal with others deciding to rebase.
I wonder if using Git more despite my perceived issues with it above would lead me to finding them non-issues, or finding more issues.