As a tech lead on game projects that feature less than the most technical developers (artists, game designers) the biggest "problem" with git happens to be its strength.
The inconsistent cli and naming can be pasted over with cleaner GUIs. No, the real issue is gits configurability. Not just the configurability but the enforced decentralization of that configurability.
For better or worse, it seems like git is actively hostile to any kind of concept of a central authority. Can I configure hooks for my team? No. Can I configure diff tools for my team? No. Can set recursive pulls to be the default? No. Can I enforce line endings? No. Can I even enforce LFS is setup right? No.
I certainly can't even enforce things in receive hooks and expect team members to know how to change their histories to adhere to our policies.
I love git but its such a pain.
I really wish someone would come up with some kind of "accept remote config" policy or some such thing.
The inconsistent cli and naming can be pasted over with cleaner GUIs. No, the real issue is gits configurability. Not just the configurability but the enforced decentralization of that configurability.
For better or worse, it seems like git is actively hostile to any kind of concept of a central authority. Can I configure hooks for my team? No. Can I configure diff tools for my team? No. Can set recursive pulls to be the default? No. Can I enforce line endings? No. Can I even enforce LFS is setup right? No.
I certainly can't even enforce things in receive hooks and expect team members to know how to change their histories to adhere to our policies.
I love git but its such a pain.
I really wish someone would come up with some kind of "accept remote config" policy or some such thing.