Oh god this author again going after clicks for hit pieces on technology without providing any alternatives.
If you think you can do it better then go ahead and try build the product and then pitch it.
If you think you can do it better then go ahead and try build the product and then pitch it.
Without making an attempt at implementation, you (the generic you, not the person I'm replying to) have no idea what the real issues are. Even failed or partial implementations are more instructive than armchair criticisms, or thought experiments where you can just handwave away all the competing constraints that need to be considered, whether in Git or in any erstwhile successor.
The list goes on
While git is good and powerful in many ways, git frankly has many deficiencies, yet everybody treats it as the holy grail of version control. Just because Linux uses it, GitHub exists or something else, I don’t know. The author lists many valid points that are not all sci-fi and that would multiply the usefulness of the vcs sevenfold.
Someone has to point out the elephant in the room.
It could spark the idea for someone to invest in something new and better or for someone to contribute improvements into git.
And your pain is distributed systems. Not just of source control, but bug tracking. And general process-manager-y stuff.
It's basically click-bait for hackers. "How to do X technology better" with a few paragraphs of ideas, and taking no responsibility for actually doing something about it, aside from hoping that their vision might inspire someone else to put in the hard work.
I didn't say they have to do anything. I did observe a pattern.
There is a difference between saying everyone should take responsibility for fixing all their criticisms and noticing that a particular person never takes responsibility for any of their criticisms.