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

Git is too hard

changelog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 821 posts

Re: Git is too hard

#181

Post by lorenzhs »

galgalesh wrote: post #145
tux1968 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a relatively easy way to accomplish this by editing your .git/config file to point at the new "authoritative" repo. But there is a simpler (although less efficient) method. Just simply git clone the new repository onto any machine you want. The clones will naturally be configured to point to that new repository as their upstream.

You don't need to change config files. `git remote rm origin` `git remote add origin new-url`

`git remote set-url origin new-url`

Re: Git is too hard

#182

Post by h0l0cube »

secondcoming wrote: post #160
h0l0cube wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`git status` is required to determine which untracked files you need to add. And then, of course, `git add` would be need to be added to the list too. To add untracked files you could use interactive mode `git add -i` and forgo reading `status`. But you can also `git commit -p` if you only modified files and forgo the `add` step. And to give yourself a sense of the commit graph, these aliases come in handy [alias] lo…

Indeed, I forgot 'git status', and 'git add' I've honestly ever felt the need, or had the requirement, to look at the graph.

I've found it indispensable when tracking and integrating other peoples' branches. I wouldn't use it so much if I was working solo.

Re: Git is too hard

#183

Post by samhh »

pelasaco wrote: post #157
secondcoming wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 These commands will get you 99% of the way: - git status - git branch - git pull - git add - git commit - git diff - git merge - git push - git checkout For everything else there's StackOverflow, but the info in there comes with the risk of being stale. -------------- Edit commit abaeb3b4: Add missing commands and improve formatting Edit commit 842babda: Add git checkout

I use git daily. I never use merge. I use git rebase, and its interactive version all day.

You'll potentially need to use merge if you're collaborating with others on feature branches.

Re: Git is too hard

#184

Post by pachico »

I have to disagree. Got is as hard and complicated as you want it to be. For the most common usage (commit, push, pull, checkout) it's very, very simple and easy to grasp. This is like saying "computers are too hard".

Re: Git is too hard

#185

Post by lmm »

leobakerhytch wrote: post #172
jasode wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But IMO it isn't because Git is hard, but because they don't have to truly understand Git to use it. That's how easy it is. A copy&paste of my previous comment: Everybody's brain is different but I actually understand all of git's internals (the "plumbing") but it doesn't help me with the git CLI (the "porcelain"). Yes, I know that Git is a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), and that HEAD is a pointer, and the file forma…

I fully agree that the default porcelain has poor UX for managing the staging area, but doesn’t a porcelain without it encourage overly large commits? All sorts of workflows become substantially more difficult (if not impossible) with kitchen sink commits. Undoing a single-line change, for instance. I dislike large pull requests, let alone commits that introduce a half dozen different changes. Sure, if you’re really…

> I fully agree that the default porcelain has poor UX for managing the staging area, but doesn’t a porcelain without it encourage overly large commits?

No, I'd say the opposite. The staging area encourages me to think that I can make my change and split it up into logical commits afterwards, even though I know I'll actually just give up and make it a big commit. When I didn't know about the staging area and just committed whenever I could, I produced better, smaller commits.

Re: Git is too hard

#186

Post by jbirer »

You don't have to understand the finer details of Git to use it. I know that HEAD is a pointer, branches, how to submit my own modifications.

Re: Git is too hard

#187

Post by rmtech »

dimgl wrote: post #6

I don't agree at all. Git is the simplest version control system I've ever used. The concept of merging, rebasing, cherry-picking, and resetting works so naturally that I'm basically going to expect this level of ease of use from any VCS I use going forward. That being said, I know there are some who have trouble with Git. But IMO it isn't because Git is hard, but because they don't have to truly understand Git to us…

A lot of people don't truly understand operating systems and yet they manage to use Windows.

You are setting a very low bar.

Re: Git is too hard

#188

Post by secondcoming »

nicoburns wrote: post #169
secondcoming wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 These commands will get you 99% of the way: - git status - git branch - git pull - git add - git commit - git diff - git merge - git push - git checkout For everything else there's StackOverflow, but the info in there comes with the risk of being stale. -------------- Edit commit abaeb3b4: Add missing commands and improve formatting Edit commit 842babda: Add git checkout

I think `git checkout` definitely needs to be there. Also `git reset` in case you make a mistake while `git add`ing

Added checkout. I'm not sure about classifying 'git reset' as an 'everyday' command.

Re: Git is too hard

#189

Post by secondcoming »

pelasaco wrote: post #157
secondcoming wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 These commands will get you 99% of the way: - git status - git branch - git pull - git add - git commit - git diff - git merge - git push - git checkout For everything else there's StackOverflow, but the info in there comes with the risk of being stale. -------------- Edit commit abaeb3b4: Add missing commands and improve formatting Edit commit 842babda: Add git checkout

I use git daily. I never use merge. I use git rebase, and its interactive version all day.

Ya, I'm the opposite, I never use rebase. Horses for courses...

Re: Git is too hard

#190

Post by clktmr »

cabirum wrote: post #143

Git should have been a library to create multiple compatible CLI/GUI implementations. The Git CLI has become too bloated to use. It will take a month to read through the manual and learn all available commands. A well-designed VSC should not take that long to learn.

Git can be compiled as a library and statically linked. A project using git as a library is 'cgit'.
Post reply on HN