I'm hopefully waiting for a new and easier alternative way of version controlling. I don't have any idea how it should be, but git's approaches are so complicated, possibly because of it is designed for so complicated projects.
There was and it was called Mercurial. It was exactly the same thing, but designed by ordinary people (i.e. not those working on the Linux kernel). As such, it ended up having less market share than zipped folders with hilariously incrementing segments of numerals in their names.
It is okay that some tools require experience and knowledge to use them correctly/efficiently. There is often tradeoff between usability and functionality. I mean it feels good to master these tools and educate others :)
Most big companies (think Google, Facebook scale) use a mix of Perforce [0] and Mercurial [1]. BitBucket supported Mercurial repositories up until recently, when they got rid of it, so now there's no super easy hosted Mercurial solution.
> Google doesn't use Perforce anymore. It's been replaced with Piper, you can read about it in articles from about 2015 or so. Perforce didn't scale enough.
Sorry, that's not true. I have a few friends who currently work at Google and I talked about remote work with them just recently. They all confirmed that Google uses Perforce.
Once you have a decent mental model of git, it works well.
Using git with magit is excellent.
Before I had a good mental model of git, I would've been comfortable with flows like 'add, commit, push' (and the smallest amount of branching from that; 'checkout -b', 'pull').
-- I wasn't able to easily dig myself out of holes I got into if I made the wrong command.
Attacker what? He, Ibrahim Balic, is a security researcher; but when it comes to Twitter, they are stubborn claiming the bug was a feature. See what "attacker" says:
