Comment by ptx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Git's data model might be simple, but the commands sure aren't. Compared to Mercurial the UI is a mess, although better than it used to be, which isn't surprising since each command initially kind of evolved as a separate program rather than being designed as part of a coherent user experience like Mercurial.

I find that Git can usually do everything Mercurial can, but it does involve those "exotic commands and flags". For example, the equivalent to

  hg id -i

is apparently

  git describe --abbrev=12 --dirty=+ --always

which is not exactly obvious, not even if you read the manual. Stack Overflow also suggests alternatives[1] using "git log", "git status" and "git rev-parse" which do similar but slightly different things and accept similar but slightly different options.

What about listing all filenames from all commits – "hg manifest --all"? I'm sure it can be done, but I'm equally sure it involves exotic flags.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14333388/git-equivalent-...

That's kind of a misleading comparison. It takes that many characters to exactly reproduce the "hg id -i" behavior because hg chose a certain set of defaults that git didn't happen to choose. What if as an hg user I want the first 16 chars of the commit ID and don't want the "dirty +"? The hg command quickly starts to look uglier.

If you just want the current commit ID in git it's just "git rev-parse HEAD". Which is still longer and uglier than "hg id -i", yeah, but it's a fairer comparison.

The fair comparison is to just "git describe", no?

TBH I'm not sure I'd ever heard of "describe" -- I'd always used rev-parse to get a commit ID. But now that I'm trying it, it gives me a branch/tag name rather than a commit ID (either bare "git describe" or with the other arguments mentioned above). So...not really sure?

It depends on what exactly you're looking for, I guess. There's a million ways to parse HEAD into a hash, if that's what you're after.

True. My point is that Mercurial has a more coherent set of commands that usually, in my experience, give you an obvious way to do obvious things.

Git has (although it's gotten better!) functionality spread haphazardly across different commands, and many commands can perform several seemingly unrelated tasks depending on the flags. There are lots of command to give you the hash of current commit, all with different combinations of bonus features, and in this particular case we use describe (which really seems to be for finding tags reachable from particular commits) because it happens to support the right combination of features.

(Perhaps I should mention that I'm currently migrating to Git. Git is fine. Many things are better than in Mercurial, just not the UI.)

I think you just proved my point.

Which point is that? That git is very simple or that expecting an equivalent of "hg id" is unreasonable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com