Live data from Hacker News

Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

github.com

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#121
post #27

Honest question: what's up with the (2 hours ago) notation? I've seen this before in a couple of git-related and other applications but personally never understood why one would pick this over date/hour. Is this a cultural thing? Do some people actually find this better (from the point of conveying timestamp information)? My main problem with it, apart from not having a high resolution, is that it usually just leads…

It's especially frustrating when you need to compare two timestamps. The problem also exists on HN. For example, in a discussion you might want to check who said something first. But if both comments say "3 days ago", then that's kinda difficult (unless you want to wait until one of them flips to 4 days ago).

Pro-tip: If you go to https://hn.algolia.com/ and search for the comments there, you should be able to see their exact timestamps.

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#123
post #117

Git is an awesome tool – so awesome that it has a vast plethora of options and commands to do just about anything. Bit attempts to alleviate some of that pain.

Got would have been a better name. It includes Go and sounds like Git.

There is already a git compatible VCS called got, it is developed from some OpenBSD pople.

https://gameoftrees.org/

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#124
post #106

The code completion thing is amazing. How does bit do it? I want to do that for all sorts of cli utilities I write.

The README mentions go-prompt[0] which is based on python-prompt-toolkit[1]

[0] https://github.com/c-bata/go-prompt

[1] https://github.com/prompt-toolkit/python-prompt-toolkit

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#125
post #69
post #48

I really liked the look of this, until I got to `save`/`sync` in the readme... That's not how I want to work, and it's not how I want other people to work in a repository I'm using. I know 'I don't have to use them then I can just use the git subcommands', but that's not the point, it's a big signal ('90% of the time the above commands will have you covered.') about the motivation/angle/philosophy of the project that…

The save command also accepts the commit message on command line only instead of opening an editor. I do not understand how people can live with only a single line for the commit message. For a new feature, I need to provide some details what is added and how it can be used. For a bugfix, a single line is rarely enough to describe the problem, what you changed, and why this change solves the problem. Writing good com…

That's what a bug tracker is for, stories, specs, and lengthy discussion. Commit message can then be "FOO-1234, add tests." Modern tools auto link those.

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much worse. At least with `git clone` you can verify that the code you're building matches something you trust. You have to trust the code and your make tool. You can inspect the code if you're concerned and validate that it's going to do what it says. It's true that the vast majority of the time a "curl | sh" works fine and does just what you expect it to do, but that's not really the point. The point is that y…

> You can inspect the code if you're concerned and validate that it's going to do what it says. You can just not pipe the curl script to shell and inspect it [0]. Executing that is no worse than executing a random make command or `brew install` > downloading the script first and inspecting it is a good idea, but still not as good as building directly from the code No, you need to inspect the code too if you're that w…

First: I apologize for not reading your original post closely enough. I agree that "curl | sh" is no worse than "git clone && make"; I think both are terrible. I will say that I can't recall ever seeing anyone recommend "git clone && make".

It sounds like we agree that blindly downloading code and building/executing it is a bad idea. That's all I was trying to assert.

There's a spectrum of safe/acceptable between "download a random binary" and "build yourself, from trusted source". I think "curl | sh" and "git clone && make" are just one step above "download a random binary" on that spectrum. We can and should do better than that.

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#128
post #27

Honest question: what's up with the (2 hours ago) notation? I've seen this before in a couple of git-related and other applications but personally never understood why one would pick this over date/hour. Is this a cultural thing? Do some people actually find this better (from the point of conveying timestamp information)? My main problem with it, apart from not having a high resolution, is that it usually just leads…

It's especially frustrating when you need to compare two timestamps. The problem also exists on HN. For example, in a discussion you might want to check who said something first. But if both comments say "3 days ago", then that's kinda difficult (unless you want to wait until one of them flips to 4 days ago).

I've never had a problem with HN's relative time. Exact ordering and times of events don't matter to me for comments on HN - their order is not relatively important aside from parent-child relationships. Times do matter when I'm debugging a release that made it to prod with a bug or if I'm comparing events that happen in time.

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why his statement was wrong. GMT does not change according to daylight savings time as far as I know?

GMT = Greenwich Meridian Time The time at the greenwich meridian = not GMT See the problem here? I know it sounds like a bad pun but it's a real problem that every developer in the UK struggled with. To make thing worse, Greenwich the location is right next to the financial district of London where thousands of developers make financial software that are one hour wrong.

GMT = Greenwich Mean Time, not Meridian Time.

It's the "Mean Solar Time[1]" at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, not the legal time observed there.

The legal time switches back and forth between GMT and BST, but the mean solar time doesn't.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time#Mean_solar_time

Re: Bit – A modernized Git CLI written in Go

#130
post #27

Honest question: what's up with the (2 hours ago) notation? I've seen this before in a couple of git-related and other applications but personally never understood why one would pick this over date/hour. Is this a cultural thing? Do some people actually find this better (from the point of conveying timestamp information)? My main problem with it, apart from not having a high resolution, is that it usually just leads…

I've updated branch suggestions to now show both relative and absolute times. Cheers!
Post reply on HN