Either I don't get most of the koans or they are intended to disparage git's UX instead of truly enlighten. Is the joke just going over my head or am I not thinking hard enough?
I think that kinda implicitly means the author considers git to be either paradoxical or illogical. That seems even more clear from the last two paragraphs of "The Hobgoblin".
If that's the case, the "One Thing Well" kohan misses the mark rather glaringly.
For example:
> [something about history being present and immutable]
>“Splendid!” exclaimed the historian. “I have a historical record of a merge commit with two parents. How can I find out which branch each parent was originally made on?”
>“History is ephemeral,” replied Master Git, “the knowledge you seek can be answered only by the gods.”
the pedantic explanation here is that branches are a separate subsystem, with each branch just being a pointer to a commit. And the history works off of the commit.
The answer from "Master Git" doesn't feel like an answer from a master. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but Git becomes way less confusing if you think more about what things are, rather than how they're used .
at that moment, positr0n was enlightened