Full of goodies? Meh. Yes, some default behaviour changed in what I think are mostly good ways.<p>There are some new features, some of them useful for a lot of people, some of them not so much.<p>It's good, but full of goodies? Nah. That's overselling it.
Am I the only one disappointed that they didn't go for a completely redesigned, consistent UI when making a shift to 2.0? I guess most just went with "everyone else is using git as is, so I have to learn the weirdness". But projects like EG are still being created - so it seems there's a need for improvements. Maybe in v3.0 they'll redo it...
I hope I won't get downvoted for this - but it looks like Git is going the C++ way - tons of very intricate details and features very few people use, that make the learning curve ever steeper.<p>Now, most people work with, what, 20% of git, tops? Why should we care about bloat if we don't use it? To me, there are two main issues: a. There are 3 ways if not more of doing every single logical operation; and b. The clutter makes it harder to find how to do stuff that is not trivial when you need it.<p>I really wish Git would be cleaned up and made more intuitive, rather than have more features and abstract more implicit behaviors.
Pretty excited to see this until I opened the page and saw that the changes were relatively low-level and things I'm unlikely to ever need or even run into.
Regarding the UI issues, I think that libgit2 takes a good approach by separating the UI from the core in a clear way. This way, you have a library that contains all the capabilities that are needed, but a UI can take advantage of that in anyway it wants.<p>For example, a UI could have a "create new branch" feature, which internally does a "create new reference pointing to commit xxx; checkout a working copy of branch y".