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

Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

ohshitgit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 520 posts

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#291

Post by giancarlostoro »

dilap wrote: post #187
swalsh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the git CLI. I do it for one reason. I know exactly what i'm doing on it. I have nothing to prove to anyone, I'm not trying to impress anyone with my "hacker" skillz. When I've tried GUI's, I'm not 100% sure what's going on under the covers. Sometimes they try to obfuscate things. While I'm probably not the worlds most advanced user, I know enough to know what I want to do, and how to do it. The CLI let's me do…

It's not anything inherent to a visual UI though, it's just that most of the UIs that exist are trying to put their own model on top of git, rather than embracing git's model. The one exception to this I've found is GitUp (mac only, sadly), and it's excellent. It's whole model is, "what operations can I perform on this graph," which is exactly the model git has. It's great.

SourceTree keeps the same language regular git uses. But I highly agree. JetBrains IDEs add their own lingo out of support for multiple version control plugins I'm sure but its confusing and easy to screw up. SourceTree is the one GUI client I want on Linux...

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#292

Post by lkrubner »

rootlocus wrote: post #271
lkrubner wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Your attitude is the exact opposite. * You setting your theory against my lived experience. If you want to understand the situation more fully, you can read How To Destroy A Tech Startup In Three Easy Steps: https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-Steps/dp/09... I did my best to re-create the extent to which decisions were driven by panic and the pressure of time. Please note, every company in the world ha…

Well, I see you're adding more and more constraints to suit your point of view. First you attacked git by pointing out some flaws that were only just about people not knowing how it worked. Then you gave a more specific example, where actually, it was in the company's best interest to hire a novice developer who didn't have time to learn git, because he was pressured into focusing on whatever the CEO wanted. Then you…

This is simply untrue:

"The issue you have with git, is that untrained developers have a hard time using it."

Please re-read my first post, up above, which started this thread. I wrote:

"But all of that stuff is trivial compared to the major flaw:

Graphic designers, writers, HTML/CSS frontenders, managers, data analysts and QA staff can’t use Git, even though they all used Subversion."

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#293

Post by mchahn »

ninkendo wrote: post #173
MonkeyIsNull wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not 100% sure what's going on under the covers. This. A thousand times over. I like to see exactly what git is doing and when; I don't want any magic stuff under the covers done for me.

GitHub's GUI is the worst. It has a "sync" button. As soon as I saw that button I knew I'd have trouble using it.. what will "sync" do? Push my branches? Pull tracking branches? Will merge commits get implicitly created? Or will it just fetch? From what servers? I didn't want to risk having my local master get pushed into production just because GH wants to make things easy for me, so I just quit it and went back to…

GitHub's Atom editor recently added git operations. I use Atom but haven't had the time to try the git wrapping. Has anyone else used it?

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#294

Post by giancarlostoro »

MonkeyIsNull wrote: post #162
swalsh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the git CLI. I do it for one reason. I know exactly what i'm doing on it. I have nothing to prove to anyone, I'm not trying to impress anyone with my "hacker" skillz. When I've tried GUI's, I'm not 100% sure what's going on under the covers. Sometimes they try to obfuscate things. While I'm probably not the worlds most advanced user, I know enough to know what I want to do, and how to do it. The CLI let's me do…

> I'm not 100% sure what's going on under the covers. This. A thousand times over. I like to see exactly what git is doing and when; I don't want any magic stuff under the covers done for me.

Even GUI based SQL tools show you a log of commands used... Git GUI clients don't even show you beforehand or after what the heck just happened... Sad.

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#295

Post by xeromal »

neves wrote: post #146
emeraldd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What GUI do you recommend? My experience has been that GUIs are the easiest and fastest way to make a mess that can't be corrected without dropping to CLI or re-cloning. (I'm looking at you SourceTree). I've long recommended that everyone who uses git know how to use the CLI even if they don't use it regularly.

I tested a bunch of Git GUIs. My requisites: - Open source (and free) - Multiplataform The one with the best usability was Git Extensions: https://github.com/gitextensions/gitextensions It is somewhat old ugly, and open a little too much of dialogs, but the workflow really works. It guides you to make the right thing. A great plus is that it already comes with Kdiff3, a great open source 3 way diff open source progra…

Agreed, Git Extensions taught me Git visually rather than through a tutorial.

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#296

Post by zxy_xyz »

lwansbrough wrote: post #42

Adopted a git GUI years ago and haven't looked back. I get looks sometimes, but I can't help but gloat when I can stage and unstage individual lines in less than a second. I think anyone who uses the CLI is either trying too hard or hasn't realized the beauty of a git GUI. Takeaways: - My commit time is usually much faster than coworkers, with higher accuracy (less frequent accidental commits, etc.) - I don't remembe…

I use the CLI because I don't currently work on any group projects.

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#297

Post by prewett »

Froyoh wrote: post #283
welly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're on a mac, I can't recommend Tower enough. It's a paid app but well worth the money. Otherwise Git Kraken is a foss offering that is also excellent.

How is atlassian's Sourcetree?

I like it a lot, it make git as simple as mercurial. I don't think it is hiding complexity, but the visual arrangement makes sense. The staging area becomes actually useful, and I love that you can stage (or revert) pieces of a file, which is handy when you forgot to commit one thing before moving on to the next.

I've only had to merge a branch once, and here I was completely confused on what was going end. This may be SourceTree's fault or git's fault. Maybe my lack of understanding.

I hate git, I don't understand git, I don't want to have to understand git, and I think the command line interface makes every UI error in the book. But SourceTree has made me like git.

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#298

Post by jsmthrowaway »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #81
falcolas wrote: post #53

A git off my lawn moment: Every time I see someone complaining because they have to dive into the reflog to fix their own mistake, all I can hear is "I was operating my table saw without using a push stick and can't understand why I lost a thumb". Friends don't let friends (especially those who don't learn how to use their tools) rewrite shared git history. If you don't understand rebase, amends, etc can do to your (…

On the other hand, doing it is the only way you're going to learn. Just do it in a safe environment, with a snapshot of the repository.

Yep. That is the important tip, right here.

    $ pushd ..
    $ cp -a my-project my-project-before-I-did-git-surgery
    $ popd
Then relax. This is extremely important before playing with nasty Git surgical tools such as huge rebases. Borked it up?

    $ pushd ..
    $ rm -rf my-project
    $ cp -a my-project-before-I-did-git-surgery my-project
    $ popd
Undo is a great thing, and it's also important to triple check the entire state of the repository before you push, because pushing is basically committing to whatever surgery you've done. If you're having to fix stuff with -f, you're going to run into trouble; try to avoid -f ever.

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#299

Post by nerdponx »

swalsh wrote: post #123
lwansbrough wrote: post #42

Adopted a git GUI years ago and haven't looked back. I get looks sometimes, but I can't help but gloat when I can stage and unstage individual lines in less than a second. I think anyone who uses the CLI is either trying too hard or hasn't realized the beauty of a git GUI. Takeaways: - My commit time is usually much faster than coworkers, with higher accuracy (less frequent accidental commits, etc.) - I don't remembe…

I use the git CLI. I do it for one reason. I know exactly what i'm doing on it. I have nothing to prove to anyone, I'm not trying to impress anyone with my "hacker" skillz. When I've tried GUI's, I'm not 100% sure what's going on under the covers. Sometimes they try to obfuscate things. While I'm probably not the worlds most advanced user, I know enough to know what I want to do, and how to do it. The CLI let's me do…

You might want to try Sourcetree if you haven't already. I felt the same way about Git GUIs for a long time, but Sourcetree actually does a good job of getting out of my way, and has a very nice commit history tree viewer to boot.

Re: Oh shit, git: Getting myself out of bad situations

#300

Post by wyuenho »

erikb wrote: post #289
wyuenho wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can certainly provide much better porcelain out of the box. Mercurial is at least as powerful as git, but I always joked that the learning curve between the two is something like, you read the docs for 5 mins and you'll know what the next 50 commands to type into hg. Whereas git, you spend 50 minutes reading the Pro Git book, just so you know what the next 5 commands should be.

Sorry, but you don't know git if you think Mercurial is even coming close. That is not trolling btw. It's really possible not to know what you can do with it if you haven't learned it in depth. The "Git Book" is what you should read. And you read it once, you read it indepth, and then you're done. After that it's also only 5 minutes of googling, but you can do a lot more. At that point you can even program a simplifi…

TBH, I've been an hg and git user for about 10 years now, I have only come across simple things that you'd expect to work in git but doesn't. For the longest time, you have to resort to contortions like this[1] so as to not lose commits after reverting a merge and then merge again.

[1]: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/howto/r...

What can't you do in Mercurial that you can in git these days?

BTW, I think we are talking about the same book.

Post reply on HN