Show HN: I wrote about book about rebasing in Git

1. "The average dev these days is so terribly uninformed, they're willing to buy an entire book to explain what, to me, is a simple concept. I feel like devs these days aren't as good."

Or:

2. "Our tools these days are so complex that the average dev needs an entire book just to understand a single command. I feel like our tools are too complicated."

You might want to work on being clearer about what you mean in the future, or else risk coming off as rude. I thought you meant #1 when I first read your statement, but, after rereading your statement, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant #2.

To respond to point #2: imagine explaining a complex bash command to someone. If they mostly used bash to change directories and list files, you might need to explain pipes, buffers, and the unix philosophy before they'd really understand it. As someone in this thread mentioned, they mostly use git for push/pull/merge and that's not uncommon. Most devs need more background about how git works behind the scenes in order to really get the benefits of something like git rebase. I happen to be one of those devs and I'm glad a book like this exists.

Git is a powerful yet complex (and sometimes confusing) tool. But imho people that are using Git every single day and yet not willing to invest some time to learn the fundamentals properly (because it's "just" a VCS) is the real issue here. It's especially difficult for people coming from other VCSs (like SVN or Mercurial). I was there once. I would probably still have the same attitude, if I didn't win a 2-day Git workshop a few years ago, which completely changed my mental model and made "advanced features" appear quite simple.

This fact (people learning commit/push/pull and moving on) creates the market for such books. "You don't want to spend 2 days on (re-)learning Git? Here's one major feature explained that you should know".

As a profession we are going on 80 years, and we need to start looking at what maturity looks like in other professions instead of trying to define it for ourselves... believing we can out think everyone, even people who have been thinking about things for a couple thousand years.

There are whole books describing how to use chisels. There are shelves of books on how to play Go, a game with really only a couple rules (and one of those is just to keep a game from going infinite turns).

But what these books are about is getting everything you possibly can out of a deceptively simple process. There is nothing deceptively simple about git.

I'm probably not very good at expressing that the book is not only about rebasing. While it is the main focus, the book covers a lot of other things that aim to give you a really good understanding of the tool (which I believe is necessary to make sense of (interactive) rebasing).

And just like you said, you can totally get around with adding/committing/pushing changes without ever touching the rebase command. Perfectly fine.

If you want to be more flexible and productive with your work, you might want to learn how to rebase though.

> I just push/pull/merge. I've never had any issues

If you're working alone or in a very small team, this may be true. But personally I am constantly (like monthly) helping my team mates fixing their Git issues. Last week our build job went rougue and created 400 commits with 60MB of data. We could have ignored it and lived with it for the rest of the repository's life - instead we just did a reset and rebased open pull requests. As if nothing ever happened.

And it's not only about issues. Knowing more then push/pull/merge makes the work more efficient. Example: not knowing how to amend changes (or not knowing that something like this even exists) will lead to useless commits ("Fix typo", "Add missed file"). In a git log, I don't really care. When doing a git blame (at least weekly), I would have to go through those useless commits to get to the commit I am looking for. Sure, it does take only a few minutes, but on the other hand amend is no Git internal black magic either.

I also remember a lot of situations where people "lost" (or maybe actually lost) their changes and had to redo them by hand. A one-liner might be fine, a full day of work is not.

> I have far more important things on my day-to-day plate then to dig into the internal workings of git.

You don't have to know the internal workings. But the fundamental knowledge on commit level (what is a commit? what is a branch? what does reset/checkout/rebase actually do?) makes most "advanced" features really easy. Spending a couple of hours to properly learn the tool I'm using daily gives a great ROI.

If there's one tool I'd recommend everyone to learn it's rebasing. Especially interactive rebasing because it enables things like splitting commits apart, squashing them together and even run automated programs.

Sounds like you either don't use GIT a lot, or your team doesn't care about clean history.

With clean history, you can, for example, automate the generation of release notes. It's very helpful if you ask me.