If you've never had a git commit FAIL (eg https://github.com/okonet/lint-staged/issues/565) you aren't very experienced with git. By your description, you've probably just used it casually a lot. You don't do anything complicated and conclude that git isn't complicated. Given the history of working with:
* Submodules
* Binaries
* Large Repositories/branches
* A disparate set of development platforms/clients
I follow Linux kernel posts on vger.kernel.org and I've yet to see Linus complain about a git commit failing. I guess he isn't very experienced either?
The largest git repo I touch has half a dozen submodules (some with their own, you have to do a recursive clone), about two thousand branches (historically, we prune them) and about two hundred thousand commits, and has committers on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
It doesn't have binaries in it, 'cause git-lfs. But I don't remember the last time I had a problem with it other than PEBKAC rebases and the like.
> If you've never had a git commit FAIL...you aren't very experienced with git. By your description, you've probably just used it casually a lot. You don't do anything complicated and conclude that git isn't complicated.
You make unwarranted assumptions about another person's experience base simply because it supports your position to do so.
He asked why people spend so much time trying to work with git abstractions then claimed "works for me". It's not gatekeeping, when replying to strawmen. Try to keep track.
* Submodules
* Binaries
* Large Repositories/branches
* A disparate set of development platforms/clients
* Git auth/credentials