[HN Gopher] Review of James Coglan's Building Git
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Review of James Coglan's Building Git
        
       Author : teleforce
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2023-04-19 11:03 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (alanstorm.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (alanstorm.com)
        
       | tessierashpool wrote:
       | First real paragraph contains false or at least misleading
       | information.
       | 
       |  _then a venture backed startup created a web application and
       | support structure for the git program called GitHub (a web
       | application and support structure that was mostly separate from
       | the git project) and sold themselves to Microsoft for seven and a
       | half billion dollars in stock._
       | 
       | GitHub didn't get involved with VC until they had already
       | completely captured the market. They were a bootstrapped, remote-
       | first startup which later _became_ venture-backed.
       | 
       | Decent review overall, excellent book, but when they created the
       | "web application and support structure for the git program," they
       | were not yet venture-backed.
        
         | suddenclarity wrote:
         | You raise a valid point. Seems the development started in 2007
         | and the site launched in 2008, only funded by the founders. It
         | wasn't until 2012 they received their first investment if
         | Wikipedia is to be trusted.
        
           | js2 wrote:
           | First round of funding discussed here on HN:
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4220353
        
       | mgdm wrote:
       | FWIW, the author's name is Coglan, not Cogland.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Fixed above. Thanks!
        
       | wanderlust123 wrote:
       | Any similar types of project based books?
        
         | suddenclarity wrote:
         | *
        
           | herbstein wrote:
           | They're not at _all_ similar.
        
         | mgdm wrote:
         | Perhaps Crafting Interpreters?
         | 
         | https://craftinginterpreters.com/
        
           | rzzzt wrote:
           | Not a book but an "awesome list"-formatted collection that
           | mentions Crafting Interpreters:
           | https://github.com/codecrafters-io/build-your-own-x
           | 
           | (Discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32157759)
        
       | JohnMakin wrote:
       | I don't know why people complain about git being hard to use. If
       | you have a basic understanding of how branching works and aren't
       | a complete dunce with CLI tools, it's very simple. It's also one
       | of the best CLI's I've ever come across.
       | 
       | People over complicate it - In 5 years now as a full time SWE I
       | barely ever use commands other than the basic ones - git pull,
       | git commit, git add/remove, git push, git merge.
       | 
       | Occasionally annoying conflicts happen on merge that you can
       | eyeball and fix fairly trivially.
        
         | zaphar wrote:
         | I only need to reach for fancy git commands when a colleague
         | come to me with a broken repo. How exactly they land in these
         | situations is not always clear to me. But the frequency that it
         | happens suggests something is confusing at least one segment of
         | the user base.
        
         | icedchai wrote:
         | Git is simple for _you_ because you 've been using it for so
         | long. If you've worked with any junior people, you know a lot
         | can go wrong. Recent small example: merge conflicts being
         | committed.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-04-20 23:01 UTC)