Comment by CuriousCosmic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CuriousCosmic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The paragraphs about git were interesting, in the sense that the author themselves suffer from the industry's "I'm right and you're wrong" motto that is the reason, by the looks, that they've left. There is some unresolved conflict there.

I don't necessarily think that's "I'm right, you're wrong". Instead it looks more like just being strongly opinionated on the matter.

As someone who is very opinionated on git and VCS in general, I get it. The difference in experiences between projects with good, clean, descriptive git histories (see most projects that follow the linux kernel/git patchset approach), projects with linear PR squash histories, and projects with lots of useless "fixup", "fix", "try again" type commits is utterly and entirely massive.

It's the type of gripe that I personally would place alongside projects not having good unit testing. A project can still be workable without them but I'm going to fight like hell to get things fixed up so we can move fast in the long run.

>> The paragraphs about git were interesting, in the sense that the author themselves suffer from the industry's "I'm right and you're wrong" motto that is the reason, by the looks, that they've left. There is some unresolved conflict there.

> I don't necessarily think that's "I'm right, you're wrong". Instead it looks more like just being strongly opinionated on the matter.

Are you honestly making the claim that the part of the post that repeatedly states "You're doing it wrong" isn't saying "I'm right you're wrong", but rather just being "strongly opinionated on the matter?"

Yeah actually.

It reads very tongue in cheek to me because I have gone on those types of rants in the past. And I've known a number of other people who hold similar stances and they also do the same thing.

Like I've literally gone on a "if you do X you are doing it wrong" rant about git verbatim when trying to explain patchset etiquette in the past. It's not trying to say "you are always wrong for doing it this way", it's just way too long winded and difficult to explain your point about should be versus shouldn't be done in your view while being nuanced and pointing out that they are sometimes okay. You just say "if you are doing X you are wrong" and hope the reader picks up on the subtext that you are just making a point and not trying to be authoritative. It's a lot easier to do in person but alas.

This still sounds a lot like 'the industry's "I'm right and you're wrong" motto'.

Sure but only out of context. If you take the context of the OP's lead in to the git discussion (where they state that it's only their opinion and that teams having their own ways of using git is perfectly justified), it's just a use of hyperbole to make a more pointed and concise argument.

You just proved that it's really really hard for us to avoid the "I'm right you're wrong" motto (and that's okay).

But the OP literally says that it's their personal opinion and that teams all have their own ways of using git prior to going into their personal gripes with how people use or under-utilise git:

> Every software team in the world has its own culture and ways of doing things, which is all good but when I see teams using git as a glorified `ctrl + s` it really breaks my heart.

>

> This should be its own blog post (one I’m planning on writing) but these are some of my general issues with how I see teams use git. I apologise in advance for any hurt feelings but here goes…

It's not "I'm right, you're wrong", it's hyperbole. They are using an exaggeration to drive home a point and at the same time making that point in a more concise manner.

He's right and they're wrong, though, sometimes that's just how it is. (In an actual project setting "this is wrong" incorporates by reference the thing I wrote down once so I don't have to repeat it)

That sounds like toxic communication to me. I bet if you took a 10 second pause before saying something is wrong, then you would be able to come up with a form of expressing your opinion that isn't phrased in such an absolutist matter. I don't think it's fair to engage in that form of language and then put the burden on other people to "pick up on the subtext". If you're trying to make a point, make that point, don't just reduce your argument to "trust me I'm right you're wrong".

It's not a matter of trying to word it differently. You are very clearly expressing your opinion on the matter and when you say "if you are doing X you are doing it wrong" like 20 or 30 times to list a bunch of things that you personally see as "git smells", it's just easier to do it that way than explain each little situation where each smell is situationally justified.

Maybe instead of saying "you are doing it wrong" you could say "you are underutilising git" but even then that only applies to some of the things he listed and not others. Hence it's easier to express that what you are saying is your opinion and then use hyperbole (i.e. "you are doing it wrong") to make a concise point.

The OP does this prior to going into their list of gripes:

> This should be its own blog post (one I’m planning on writing) but these are some of my general issues with how I see teams use git. I apologise in advance for any hurt feelings but here goes…

It's only them definitively claiming that "I'm right and you are wrong" when taken out of context from the surrounding article text. But within the context of that article, it's just a use of hyperbole to make a concise point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com