This feels harsh. Engineers have an endless list of other things to learn that are arguably more important, and it isn’t always worth understanding all the weird edge cases that almost never pop up (to say nothing of Git’s hostile, labyrinthine UX that one would have to deal with).

▲

HelloNurse 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What things to learn are more important for "engineers" than using VC messages and history for communicating adequately (including communicating with themselves in the future) and using VC merging, staging etc. to put source code in a good state that they intend to build, share and archive? Irreproducible or incomprehensible work is worse than nothing.

▲

9dev 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s akin to saying the most important thing for an author is to use a word professor correctly.

	▲	irishcoffee 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'd argue its like saying its important for an author to write an entire book using ed.

▲

gcr 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's absolutely worth taking the time to learn `jj`, for example, but `jj`'s ideas build on top of `git`'s ideas. If you don't know why it's important that commits reference their parents, for example, that's limiting your knowledge of how VCS works in important ways.

A compromise/synthesis: everyone should absolutely learn how git works internally, but not necessarily how to use the git-specific porcelain/tooling/CLI