I know git is complex, and the UX is sometimes messy, but after really, really learning it (shoutout to the Github training folks), I've never had any problems that couldn't be solved. I understand the desire to simplify some things, and their log looks way better than gits, but I wish they'd contribute back instead of rolling their own entire VCS.
The one thing that is super exciting to me is the stacked pull request support. Using Github for this kind of workflow is enormously painful. Conversations constantly get outdated, and its nearly impossible to track whether comments have been addressed.
I know they're working on an improved UX/experience there, but it seems like it'll be a good long while, especially for enterprise server customers.
> I've never had any problems that couldn't be solved.
Stockholm syndrome. I've used Git for 15 years, early GitHub user, etc. Yes, you can solve many of these things, but until recently even things like "I am changing patch 2 in a series of 5 and need to rebase the following 3" were ridiculously painful. This is a common workflow many people like (including the Linux kernel devs) and Git was bad at it.
Git submodules. I'm not even going to go into this, they're so bad. That's a problem I wish Git had never "Solved" to spare us the burden.
There are tons of minor nits in Git all over the place. "Solving" something is completely different from actually having something that can be easily used for your team. There's no amount of contributing Facebook could have done to fix Git, because they'd be turning Git into something else that it fundamentally is not. And it doesn't matter if you have a trillion dollars, it's often not practical to just overhaul someone else's whole project when these goals don't align.
Is an intellectually dishonest fantasy invented for the sole purpose of using it to discredit and distract from criticism of the actions of the inventor of the phrase, so should never be ascribed as the source of a position you want to argue against unless your intent is to signal that your own position lacks a reasonable argument and you are just choosing to character-assassinate the opposition to cover for that.
I know git makes you shove toothpicks under your fingernails in order to let you use the keyboard, but after really, really learning to do this, i've never found it a blocker for my daily work. I understand the desire to simplify things, but i wish they'd contribute back ways of making people more comfortable with the toothpicks rather than just removing them and starting from scratch.
I am not a fan of FB, but they tried - you can find them on the git mailing list where they got told they are doing it wrong for things like "scaling" or "productivity". Which is always ironic since basically nobody in open source generates or uses any real data about productivity, it's all just gut feelings about users.
I think the biggest issue is that back around 2011/2012 ish, when Facebook devs went to git core devs and asked how they could get git to scale to the size of their predicted monorepo, the response was roughly "no, shard it".
git falls over and dies really, really badly when the repo gets stupidly large.
"Contribute back to our piece of crap that is 99% antagonistic to your use case" is not realistic. No amount of third party contributions to git will relieve git of its opinions about how development workflow should be done, and those opinions are not shared with every organization.
The one thing that is super exciting to me is the stacked pull request support. Using Github for this kind of workflow is enormously painful. Conversations constantly get outdated, and its nearly impossible to track whether comments have been addressed.
I know they're working on an improved UX/experience there, but it seems like it'll be a good long while, especially for enterprise server customers.