141–150 of 353 posts
I use TortoiseGit under Windows. It took me 3 days (on and off) to figure out how to push code to my repositories again. The amount of misleadng and confusing information on the internet is extraordinary. Signed: a developer with well over a decade of experience in version control, *nix, Windows, crypto, etc.
Ok I'll admit it. I'm the dingus who is still using https and login/password. It's how I learned to use it years ago and since I only ever access GitHub via cli it's all I've ever learned. I don't program anything complex and I've never put anything secure up on GitHub (it's public, after all, so i had the expectation that all info on there is insecure). I don't understand why this is being deprecated when it's the d…
You can use a supporting Git Credential Manager (such as GCM Core: https://github.com/microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-Core ) to keep using HTTPS and login/password. Instead of typing in your username/password directly in the CLI, it pops up GitHub's login page where you input login/password and then does the dance for you to get an access token from that. (Git for Windows default installs GCM Core. Some Linux distro…
I'm fine with this change for my usage, I don't think I've used password auth for myself or any automated service I've setup for years now. However, this will introduce more confusion for newcomers who already have to figure out what Git, GitHub, etc are. I just spent some time last weeekend teaching someone the basics of how to create a new project. Such a simple idea required introducing the terminal, basic termina…
I also have found teaching someone how to be even marginally capable of contributing to a Github project from scratch to be a very time consuming and frustrating thing. Think, having your graphics designer able to make commits, or having someone who only wants to update docs. The worst part is the "easier" solutions are actually just footguns in disguise, as soon as they accidentally click the wrong thing and end up…
And some statisticians and stuff only know how to use the GitHub desktop client and that works ok for 99% of them. Drives me crazy because I only use cli and struggle to help when they get blocked with the client.
Because most people want to keep it simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. People say stuff like this, but what they're really talking about is their own familiarity with GitHub (in the vein of http://lighttable.com/2014/05/16/pain-we-forgot/ >). What GitHub has going for it is that it is familiar to ("a majority of"?) working developers, and that it's better than both the competition and the Git CLI itself, but from a reality-adjusted perspective, GitHub is pretty bad, too. (Th…
Interestingly, Microsoft has a product called TFS that has a great wiki implementation: it's native markdown (with github enhancements), a decent in-browser editor/viewer, and it's backed by git. Plus it has some nice features that let you refer to people with the at-symbol (@) and work items (bugs, tasks, stories, features, etc) with a hash symbol (#), and some other stuff. Github itself has some of these features;…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also have found teaching someone how to be even marginally capable of contributing to a Github project from scratch to be a very time consuming and frustrating thing. Think, having your graphics designer able to make commits, or having someone who only wants to update docs. The worst part is the "easier" solutions are actually just footguns in disguise, as soon as they accidentally click the wrong thing and end up…
I just have non-devs use the browser interface and this seems to work for text edits and image uploads and stuff. And some statisticians and stuff only know how to use the GitHub desktop client and that works ok for 99% of them. Drives me crazy because I only use cli and struggle to help when they get blocked with the client.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also have found teaching someone how to be even marginally capable of contributing to a Github project from scratch to be a very time consuming and frustrating thing. Think, having your graphics designer able to make commits, or having someone who only wants to update docs. The worst part is the "easier" solutions are actually just footguns in disguise, as soon as they accidentally click the wrong thing and end up…
I've successfully gotten non-devs to use Git via GitKraken. Its interface is simple, but doesn't hide anything. Harder to make mistakes because it actually shows you what's going on, and even has an "Undo" button which lets you back out of mistakes most of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've successfully gotten non-devs to use Git via GitKraken. Its interface is simple, but doesn't hide anything. Harder to make mistakes because it actually shows you what's going on, and even has an "Undo" button which lets you back out of mistakes most of the time.
When I was just starting out with git and hadn't really learned enough of the more advanced workflows in git I really wanted gitkraken. Much like the jetbrains software it has a license requirement so that can be a turn-off but if you're trying to teach git in a visual way on teaching projects this software is great.
But yeah, I pay for it now because it's such a significant time saver for my day-to-day. I'm always aware of what my coworkers are doing because it auto-fetches every minute. I use it for code review as well, because I find it really easy and snappy to navigate file changes in a commit (I always use split view, and I almost always have "hide whitespaces changes" on). I has a great interface for interactive rebases as well, allowing to drag to reorder commits, etc. Good built-in merge conflict resolution tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh oh, you've now merged remote master into your local master which was two commits ahead and 3 behind! My git config has fast-forward only for pulls and I habitually use --ff-only for any pull :)
The command you want is "git pull --rebase". There are configuration settings to make "git pull" rebase by default, and I'd recommend always turning that on that default (which may be by why the person above omitted it from his pull command). I actually thought "git pull" did "git pull --rebase" by default (this may be what you get from running `git --configure` without modifications?), but maybe I've just been confi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, Microsoft has a product called TFS that has a great wiki implementation: it's native markdown (with github enhancements), a decent in-browser editor/viewer, and it's backed by git. Plus it has some nice features that let you refer to people with the at-symbol (@) and work items (bugs, tasks, stories, features, etc) with a hash symbol (#), and some other stuff. Github itself has some of these features;…
I disagree. I think TFS is an abortion geared around project managers with dev features bolted on. The wiki is ok if you’ve never used other products and their optimizations require an understanding of TFS’ project management suite. I’ve never been able to teach non-TFSers how to use the wiki who don’t commit to learning TFS.