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

Oh shit, git (2016)

ohshitgit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 280 posts

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#51

Post by saagarjha »

rk06 wrote: post #46
dwaltrip wrote: post #41

Git is pretty nice, but I'm sure there is something much better waiting to he invented. The CLI in particular could use a ton of improvements. And I feel it in my bones that there is a revolutionary GUI waiting to be invented. Why can't I drag a commit or set of commits from one branch to another? With safe, easy undo (reflog doesn't count) and super smooth conflict resolution? Etc etc. And of course there is the int…

https://gitless.com/

Can this tool make the commit history look like I'd like it to?

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#52

Post by anujsharmax »

dwaltrip wrote: post #41

Git is pretty nice, but I'm sure there is something much better waiting to he invented. The CLI in particular could use a ton of improvements. And I feel it in my bones that there is a revolutionary GUI waiting to be invented. Why can't I drag a commit or set of commits from one branch to another? With safe, easy undo (reflog doesn't count) and super smooth conflict resolution? Etc etc. And of course there is the int…

If you use Emacs, give magit (https://magit.vc) a try.

It is so much better than Git CLI, which probably is too low level for daily usage.

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#53

Post by teekert »

_7fvc wrote: post #20

Reading this article, I realize that I'm old now. I still remember wrestling with cvs, svn. Merge, branch were slow and even more challenging. It was much easier to mess up and so difficult to rewind. When I first learned git, I thought it's pretty neat. It solves merge, branch, rewind problems. Git is one of the things in life that doesn't work like the way we think. But it turns out to be a better way.

Git is ugly and daunting when you start with it, but as you get to know it you start to appreciate it's beauty and elegance and it will work for you. Actually I find this with many programming concepts.

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#54

Post by gritzko »

dwaltrip wrote: post #41

Git is pretty nice, but I'm sure there is something much better waiting to he invented. The CLI in particular could use a ton of improvements. And I feel it in my bones that there is a revolutionary GUI waiting to be invented. Why can't I drag a commit or set of commits from one branch to another? With safe, easy undo (reflog doesn't count) and super smooth conflict resolution? Etc etc. And of course there is the int…

swarmdb has CRDT-based merge and causal branching which is "super smooth". Lets you recombine changesets rather freely, or at least supposed to. https://github.com/gritzko/ron-cxx/tree/master/db (the project is in its early stages)

Regarding language-aware AST-based diffs, I know of one serious full-time effort. Even for Java, it turned way too complex, so guys gave up.

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#55

Post by Chazprime »

rich-tea wrote: post #27
thrax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't gatekeep. Git isn't just for programmers.. it's for people that are learning.. people using it in non programming capacities and tons more. Telling people to "git gud" is not helpful. Not everyone knows, or indeed cares to know what a Directed Acyclic Graph is, and sites like this help people's anxiety who are just learning, or who have already screwed up and just want a solution.

Git is just for programmers. It was made by and for kernel developers, no less. There are better tools for other people. If you don't care what a DAG is, you will never understand what git is or what it's for. No arguments. Git is a tool for building a DAG. If you don't need a DAG you don't need git.

Nope.

You can use Git for versioning all kinds of assets...3D models, fonts, textures, music. I know someone who stored his book on Github and took pull requests from editors.

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#56

Post by rickycook »

rich-tea wrote: post #27
thrax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't gatekeep. Git isn't just for programmers.. it's for people that are learning.. people using it in non programming capacities and tons more. Telling people to "git gud" is not helpful. Not everyone knows, or indeed cares to know what a Directed Acyclic Graph is, and sites like this help people's anxiety who are just learning, or who have already screwed up and just want a solution.

Git is just for programmers. It was made by and for kernel developers, no less. There are better tools for other people. If you don't care what a DAG is, you will never understand what git is or what it's for. No arguments. Git is a tool for building a DAG. If you don't need a DAG you don't need git.

so the people who maintain our site content using markdown and hugo, commit/push git, and trigger a CI build and deploy automatically MUST be developers?

answer: they are not, but they can handle basic git just fine. we aren’t some special class of super human: git is a tool, and you absolutely don’t need to know what a DAG is to use it

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#57

Post by mehrdadn »

fulafel wrote: post #33
serpi wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you just rebase on top of their changes. No biggie here. It does not matter one bit if their branch rewrites itself underneath.

But you can't safely rebase that branch! Having rebased it, you would have now broken it for others working on it. So this is a great example how the damage spreads and taints other branches around the history rewrite. (And even arriving at the "ok i could fix this with rebase" diagnosis will have been painful and frustrating and eaten time & energy, and you can't be sure you got away with it before actually doing it…

> But you can't safely rebase that branch!

Huh? You don't rebase their branch. You rebase your own changes on top of their branch, which they happened to recently rewrite. Just like you might rebase your changes on top of master after master has undergone changes. I think the parent's point was that it doesn't matter if the branch was rewritten or just extended; either way you rebase the same commits on it the same way. (If you're one of those people who's against the notion of rebasing entirely then that's a separate debate we can have another time, but you need to separate that from the force-push issue.)

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#58

Post by kkarakk »

Chazprime wrote: post #55
rich-tea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is just for programmers. It was made by and for kernel developers, no less. There are better tools for other people. If you don't care what a DAG is, you will never understand what git is or what it's for. No arguments. Git is a tool for building a DAG. If you don't need a DAG you don't need git.

Nope. You can use Git for versioning all kinds of assets...3D models, fonts, textures, music. I know someone who stored his book on Github and took pull requests from editors.

Yes but those are hacks, no one should immediately reach for git as a tool to version EVERYTHING just because you can. If you treat git as a convenient hammer for your screw, don't be surprised when the screw breaks at an inopportune time

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#59

Post by voltagex_ »

rich-tea wrote: post #27
thrax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't gatekeep. Git isn't just for programmers.. it's for people that are learning.. people using it in non programming capacities and tons more. Telling people to "git gud" is not helpful. Not everyone knows, or indeed cares to know what a Directed Acyclic Graph is, and sites like this help people's anxiety who are just learning, or who have already screwed up and just want a solution.

Git is just for programmers. It was made by and for kernel developers, no less. There are better tools for other people. If you don't care what a DAG is, you will never understand what git is or what it's for. No arguments. Git is a tool for building a DAG. If you don't need a DAG you don't need git.

I know, I know, don't reply to the trolls, but at least this troll made me remember some things I'd seen.

Git for writers: https://medium.com/@sayhellotovanessa/git-for-writers-write-...

> There are better tools for other people.

Such as?

Re: Oh shit, git (2016)

#60

Post by sAbakumoff »

_7fvc wrote: post #20

Reading this article, I realize that I'm old now. I still remember wrestling with cvs, svn. Merge, branch were slow and even more challenging. It was much easier to mess up and so difficult to rewind. When I first learned git, I thought it's pretty neat. It solves merge, branch, rewind problems. Git is one of the things in life that doesn't work like the way we think. But it turns out to be a better way.

how about star team? L)
Post reply on HN