From a cursory read of the readme and design documents, it looks to me the key point about Evo is a different use of existing concepts, like branches, merges, etc. rather than new concepts. I guess if you want ephemeral branches, nobody stops you from using git in that way, too. A wrapper around git would solve the remaining propositions, that is a better command syntax.
I struggled to understand git until I tried "gitless"[1], a wrapper around git that lets you focus on your workflow ignoring git's own weirdness. For example, switching to another branch automatically checks out the active commit of that branch. This is what you want most of the time: you don't switch branch and then don't even look at the code in that branch, do you?
I was intrigued but... What does this even mean? "switching to another branch" is the same thing as "checking out the active commit of that branch" in git.
> For example, switching to another branch automatically checks out the active commit of that branch. This is what you want most of the time: you don't switch branch and then don't even look at the code in that branch, do you?
You are right. What gitless does differently is it saves (git stash) the uncommitted files before switching: branches are well isolated, it doesn't let uncommited files be "copied over", if you understand what I mean.
I struggled to understand git until I tried "gitless"[1], a wrapper around git that lets you focus on your workflow ignoring git's own weirdness. For example, switching to another branch automatically checks out the active commit of that branch. This is what you want most of the time: you don't switch branch and then don't even look at the code in that branch, do you?
Unfortunately gitless doesn't seem maintained anymore...
[1] https://github.com/gitless-vcs/gitless