Thank you for writing - I agree merging makes more sense and I would go as far to say it is a design mistake for a version control system to even allow for history/commits to be altered or overwritten (maybe unpopular opinion).
Likely even more unpopular and controversial... every time I read a git article (and this is in no way a criticism of this article in particular, which I think is well written) I am reminded that we need something better than the user hostile git (your using it wrong...!). I don't think version control has been solved properly yet by any tool.
That isn't intended as a negative comment - I think we can and eventually will do better. I believe that will eventually take the form of a more opinionated and conceptually simpler hybrid which combines the best points of distributed and centralised systems.
Thank you for writing - I agree merging makes more sense and I would go as far to say it is a design mistake for a version control system to even allow for history/commits to be altered or overwritten (maybe unpopular opinion).
Likely even more unpopular and controversial... every time I read a git article (and this is in no way a criticism of this article in particular, which I think is well written) I am reminded that we need something better than the user hostile git (your using it wrong...!). I don't think version control has been solved properly yet by any tool.
That isn't intended as a negative comment - I think we can and eventually will do better. I believe that will eventually take the form of a more opinionated and conceptually simpler hybrid which combines the best points of distributed and centralised systems.
That's an interesting idea and would be nice to see it implemented in the future. The more variety the better!