Things I just don't like about Git
Comes up in every conversation I have about Emacs, Git, CSS, etc: Just because a tool is the <i>best</i> at what it does, that doesn&#x27;t necessarily mean it&#x27;s <i>good</i> at what it does. Those are two different metrics.<p>There&#x27;s no danger of me dropping Git, the best alternative I&#x27;ve seen is Fossil and (opinion me) I think Fossil makes more mistakes than Git does. But Git definitely still has flaws; a lot of this post rings true to me.<p>I do think that Git gets a lot better the more that you understand how it works. Not perfect, a lot of the flaws being pointed out here are core flaws with Git&#x27;s internals and have nothing to do with the UI. But it does get significantly better; some of the failure modes are much easier to avoid if you&#x27;ve spent time digging into how Git works, and the whole thing starts to feel a lot more elegant the more that the abstractions are stripped away. But that&#x27;s also kind of a flaw in itself: Git&#x27;s user interface is  much more complicated than the underlying program or concepts are, which is obviously not great.