Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds did not commit this

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#181

Post by facetube »

yxhuvud wrote: post #53
aikah wrote: post #16

It's a github 'social' issue , not really a git issue. It might also be a legal issue (identity theft). And i'm a bit surprised github let people impersonate others through their 'social' features.

It is really not possible for github to track the origin of commits. For example, consider a fork. If you pull some commits from the original and then push them to your fork then that would look just like this. The only thing I can think of is that it may be possible to track commits if everyone would sign them as they were created, but that would require all users to change, so I don't see how that can happen.

How about just showing who actually made the HTTPS or SSH connection to Github to push the changeset?

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#182

Post by uniformlyrandom »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #114
uniformlyrandom wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it appears that git 2.3.2 only allows to go back as far as Dec 2014. That is a pity. I have already prepared a README.md claiming that I have created the internet, but then I failed while trying to backdate it to 1969 (PDT). I was this close to becoming very rich and very evil. Oh well.

Don't give up so easily - you have the source code! ;)

I got to my linux workstation, cloned the git repo and dug into the code. Could not figure out how the limitation worked though. Turned out, it did not - the problem was specific to my mac's git. So yes, you can author files from 1970 - it is not a big deal. Thought it was kind of a weird limitation.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#183

Post by SamLL »

gertef wrote: post #143
WalterBright wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the first I've heard that it had anything to do with saving money, and I spent 4 years there. It does, however, make life easier for professors and students when you can trust each other. I don't know what Caltech is like today. I attended in 70's, and the honor system was considered sacred by the students. If there were cheaters, they never bragged about it, and I don't know of any. I know one who fell asleep…

> The professor replied back that he was very sorry and was forced to give him an F. The student repeated the (required) class next year. Wow, way to prize process over people. Why not let the student drop the class and just re-take the test next time around? Is Caltech designed to teach science, or train paper-pushers?

In my day (ca. 2000) there was no "forced to give an F" and in fact it was very common for exam-takers to draw a line, write "everything below this line I did after the time limit", and get partial credit for it.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#184

Post by dragonwriter »

vacri wrote: post #169
dragonwriter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto). No, its not. Rejecting the validity of an argument for p is not the same as making an argument for not- p .

But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population", with the vague assumption that Caltech students are more honour-bound. Not being representative of a population doesn't give any information about the makeup of the subsample, unless you have more information to add.

> But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population"

No, its not, which is why you had to present a "quote" that isn't to advance that story.

I presented how they would reject an argument from the general population, not positive argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#185

Post by Pyxl101 »

gertef wrote: post #143
WalterBright wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the first I've heard that it had anything to do with saving money, and I spent 4 years there. It does, however, make life easier for professors and students when you can trust each other. I don't know what Caltech is like today. I attended in 70's, and the honor system was considered sacred by the students. If there were cheaters, they never bragged about it, and I don't know of any. I know one who fell asleep…

> The professor replied back that he was very sorry and was forced to give him an F. The student repeated the (required) class next year. Wow, way to prize process over people. Why not let the student drop the class and just re-take the test next time around? Is Caltech designed to teach science, or train paper-pushers?

You could at least ask the student how much time they took actively working on the exam, less the part where they fell asleep, and compare that to the time limit.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#186

Post by stefantalpalaru »

imrehg wrote: post #178
lern_too_spel wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's making a sarcastic reference to this recent incident: https://b0wie.s3.amazonaws.com/second-response-full.jpg .

I wonder what would happen if I push some electromagnetic calculations to Github (I'm a physicist): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

You can't win an argument against people who gave up on logic.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#189

Post by beefsack »

GitHub issues become ridiculous places full of mindless stupidity whenever an issue breeches a certain level of popularity. I'd love to see a mechanism to improve signal to noise ratios, it's not a place for Redditisms.

Re: Linus Torvalds did not commit this

#190

Post by bronson »

Pharaoh2 wrote: post #94
bronson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the project. If I ran the Linux kernel, I'd insist on clear commits too.

Oh no no no. If you are handling something as important as the Linux kernel, you will absolutely want traceability over anything as trivial as clean history. You will impose signed commits and signed merges only... none of these FF stuff. If you want clean history on top of that, you will enforce that on original pull request not after the fact.

I'm responding to, "there's nothing wrong with not having it clean."

Yes, there often is. And I do enforce it on the original pull request.

Post reply on HN