[ratatoskrt]

To be fair, Git itself is a bit of a pain, and GitHub's main achievement is/was to make it somewhat bearable.

[casenmgreen]

I regard the Git docs as being fully equal to scientific Wikipedia articles.

Everything is fully and completely explained, in terms which mean nothing.

[eru]

I find both Wikipedia and Git docs typically more useful than this. Much more.

(They ain't perfect, of course.)

[spookie]

To be fair, most of the its difficulty is realized when you're stuck with a teammate rewriting history. Who, much like anyone anyone doing the same, hasn't bothered reading a book explaining things.

[baq]

If you don't rewrite history in git, I don't want to bisect in your repos.

If you push rewritten history to master, you're a git.

Conclusion: learn your tools.

[jamienicol]

That problem is solved by preventing forced pushes. Rewriting history locally is encouraged.

[tester756]

No, git's CLI is terrible mess.

[mmis1000]

In some sense, git is actually like advanced zip versioning system. A commit is literally just a snapshot of code base except it tell you what is the previous version of this version.

Also, git store the files in a smarter way so file size won't explode like zip versioning.

[eru]

> A commit is literally just a snapshot of code base except it tell you what is the previous version of this version.

Or previous versions. Plural. Yes.

Well, that's one half of git. The other half is tooling to work with the snapshots and their history, eg to perform merges.