> The end result was the method-level modification history, including timestamps and authorship info, was lost, since it didn't fit into git's model of treating everything as text files or blobs.
That seems odd, they seem easy enough to map to each other?
> Git is also much more confusing than Monticello.
Not my experience. Uni had us use Smalltalk for a bunch of courses, and Monticello was universally hated (and people caused their to-be-expected number of messes with Git too, but still got on with that much better)
Why not? Git should handle this just fine. And you can always make details-in-second-parent merge commits or squash them down later, if you don't like the whole history having that level of detail.
That seems odd, they seem easy enough to map to each other?
> Git is also much more confusing than Monticello.
Not my experience. Uni had us use Smalltalk for a bunch of courses, and Monticello was universally hated (and people caused their to-be-expected number of messes with Git too, but still got on with that much better)