61–70 of 147 posts
I don't follow each Git release, but I also didn't notice a great productivity enhancement for a long time. Sure it is a sign of a mature project, but I'd like to know:
What's the somewhat recent Git feature that you really improved your productivity?
Someone please give me the missing link here: 1. I do `git log` which helpfully pipes to `more` where I can use vim-stsyle search to find the commit I'm interested in. 2. I find the relevant commit. 3. Now I want to `git show` that commit. Currently I double click on the human unreadable commit, copy it, quit `more` to get back to the command line, type `git show`, then paste the commit. Navigate, click-click, shortc…
I just came back to git and gitlab from Perforce and while it's felt like coming home and some things are improving around submodules and LFS there's still a lot of rough edges I'd like to see smoothed over. Its not easy to set up git config settings for a distributed team. I assume for security reasons a repo can't configure its own settings just from a pull but even still I want that functionality. Why do I check i…
Git itself is not the right place to have it because of the security issues with it, but if you can run Ansible or something similar then you have root on the system anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use, and prefer "trunk" since I rarely use branches, but "canon" might change my mind.
I've been debating "mast" as it sort of evokes "trunk" in an amusing seafaring sort of way, and partly for the same reason a lot people like "main" because their muscle memory is "ma ". For several reasons my muscle memory at this point is "mast ", so "mast" is even a slight improvement over my muscle memory. But I'm not sure I'd get that much interest from other people to use "mast", it might just be something in my…
I'm a somewhat advanced user of Git. My coworkers use me as a reference when they have a problem of a difficult merge to solve. I don't follow each Git release, but I also didn't notice a great productivity enhancement for a long time. Sure it is a sign of a mature project, but I'd like to know: What's the somewhat recent Git feature that you really improved your productivity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the ubiquitous "master".
It's the ubiquitous "master" that everyone is trying to get rid of. There are details in several of the linked articles. TL/DR: The master/slave analogy is problematic and lots of projects have decided we don't need that terminology around any more, when we can pick less problematic names easily (easier now that there is a config option for it without needing to create a full git init template).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been debating "mast" as it sort of evokes "trunk" in an amusing seafaring sort of way, and partly for the same reason a lot people like "main" because their muscle memory is "ma ". For several reasons my muscle memory at this point is "mast ", so "mast" is even a slight improvement over my muscle memory. But I'm not sure I'd get that much interest from other people to use "mast", it might just be something in my…
I've also been debating just calling it "default" since we always refer to it as the default branch anyway.
I'm a somewhat advanced user of Git. My coworkers use me as a reference when they have a problem of a difficult merge to solve. I don't follow each Git release, but I also didn't notice a great productivity enhancement for a long time. Sure it is a sign of a mature project, but I'd like to know: What's the somewhat recent Git feature that you really improved your productivity?
It pays to follow the release notes because some of these features are opt-in (e.g. commit graph is still optional).
The sparse checkout stuff is great but still too low-level for us to use, but it's laying the groundwork for something good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the ubiquitous "master".
It's the ubiquitous "master" that everyone is trying to get rid of. There are details in several of the linked articles. TL/DR: The master/slave analogy is problematic and lots of projects have decided we don't need that terminology around any more, when we can pick less problematic names easily (easier now that there is a config option for it without needing to create a full git init template).
master/slave has been with us since forever (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969906) and describes a relationship between two entities where one is the controller and the other is controlled, in many religions (including the most popular one) there is still a master God (or more than one) and believers are slave to God (with the capital G)
But in Git there is simply a "master" branch, there is no master/slave relationship, there is no hierarchy enforced, branches are just copies that diverged from the master copy, master as in master recording or "the source from which all copies will be produced"
I honestly have a hard time understanding what's problematic with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the ubiquitous "master".
It's the ubiquitous "master" that everyone is trying to get rid of. There are details in several of the linked articles. TL/DR: The master/slave analogy is problematic and lots of projects have decided we don't need that terminology around any more, when we can pick less problematic names easily (easier now that there is a config option for it without needing to create a full git init template).