Every time I see a statement like this I wonder what specific features of git that people feel like are terrible enough that it’s time to completely start over. Besides “the UX is kinda shit and it’s confusing to learn”, which there are many solutions for already that don’t involve reinventing a pretty good wheel.

Coming from mercurial (which is older than git), git doesn't understand a branch. Instead of a branch you get a tag that moves, which is very different. Too often I'm trying to figure out where something came in, and but there is just a series of commits with no information of which commits are related. Git then developed the squash+rebase workflow which softof gets around this, but it makes commit longer (bad), and loses the real history of what happened.

Git was not the first DVCS, there were better ones even when it was made. But Linus pushed git and people followed like sheep.

(I'm using git, both because everyone else is, and also because github exists - turns out nobody even wants a DVCS, they want a central version control system with the warts of SVN fixed).

Git is basically fine even though the verbs are backwards - e.g. you shouldn't need to name branches, commits should be far more automatic, but the basic mechanisms are fine.

GitHub is an abomination.

Right.

How we got git was cvs was totally terrible[1], so Linus refused to use it. Larry McEvoy persuaded Linus to use Bitkeeper for the Linux kernel development effort. After trying Bitkeeper for a while, Linus did the thing of writing v0 of git in a weekend in a response to what he saw as the shortcomings of Bitkeeper for his workflow.[2]

But the point is there had already been vcs that saw wide adoption, serious attempts to address shortcomings in those (perforce and bitkeeper in particular) and then git was created to address specific shortcomings in those systems.

It wasn't born out of just a general "I wish there was something easier than rebase" whine or a desire to create the next thing. I haven't seen anything that comes close to being compelling in that respect. jj comes into that bucket for me. It looks "fine". Like if I was forced to use it I wouldn't complain. It doesn't look materially better than git in any way whatsoever though, and articles like this which say "it has no index" make me respond with "Like ok whatever bro". It really makes no practical difference to me whether the VCS has an index.

[1] I speak as someone who maintained a CVS repo with nearly 700 active developers and >20mm lines of code. When someone made a mistake and you had to go in and edit the repo files in binary format it was genuinely terrifying.

[2] In a cave. From a box of scraps. You get the idea.

If git would change two defaults, that would make me really happy:

  1. git merge ONLY does merges (no fast forward/rebase). git pull ONLY does a fast forward
  2. git log by default is git log --first-parent. Just show commits where the parent is the current branch. This makes the merge workflow really easy to understand an linear, because in the end, you only care about commits on the trunk.