Live data from Hacker News

Highlights from Git 2.34

github.blog

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#41
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Microsoft, but you can't blame microsoft for the fact that apparently the git project never made a proper webpage. Obviously that means people will try to find information about git elsewhere.

Isn’t [1] the official git home page? I don’t follow your comment. [1] https://git-scm.com/

Said website was originally created for Git by GitHub employees, so presumably that site is also incredibly offensive to those who don't like the blog post.

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#42
I've got some patches in this release. If anyone's got question that someone who contributes to git might be able to answer I'd love to help.

Are there any specific things that git does that you wish were done better? I probably won't be able to help with very generic things like "it's complex", but if there's specific drawbacks in some particular commands I might be able to fix them.

Or anything else, I'll monitor this thread while there's interest.

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#43
post #42

I've got some patches in this release. If anyone's got question that someone who contributes to git might be able to answer I'd love to help. Are there any specific things that git does that you wish were done better? I probably won't be able to help with very generic things like "it's complex", but if there's specific drawbacks in some particular commands I might be able to fix them. Or anything else, I'll monitor t…

Well, since you ask. `git add -i` has different "escape"/"exit" semantics for different actions.

If I want to quit/escape adding a patch in the interactive mode I type `q` and then enter.

If I want to quit/escape the interactive add subcommand I type `q` and then enter.

But if I want to quit the `update`, `untracked` etc. I have to enter nothing and then press enter. It would be such a wonderful thing if it also accepted `q` so my muscle "memory" is correct.

I looked into changing this once, but it is written in shell and Perl, which I don't know enough about to figure out.

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#44
post #42

I've got some patches in this release. If anyone's got question that someone who contributes to git might be able to answer I'd love to help. Are there any specific things that git does that you wish were done better? I probably won't be able to help with very generic things like "it's complex", but if there's specific drawbacks in some particular commands I might be able to fix them. Or anything else, I'll monitor t…

I'm not always very happy with the conflicts git rebase gives me.

For example when I try to bring an old feature branch forward, or when I have two private branches with a common history that I've touched on one side and want rebase to apply my history change onto the other branch, I'm often made to resolve a lot more conflict that seems necessary.

There are scripts like git-imerge that give some much nicer conflicts. imerge may not be perfect, but I think it shows there's room for a more clever algorithm.

I'd happily have a git rebase --full-resolver --wuauctl option that consumes a mysteriously large amounts of CPU time, if it saves me some manual conflict resolution =)

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#45
Major: A new default merge strategy

> In Git 2.34, ort is now the default merge strategy, so you should notice faster merges with fewer bugs just by upgrading

> a rewrite allowed Git to implement a merge strategy that doesn’t operate on the index

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#46
post #42

I've got some patches in this release. If anyone's got question that someone who contributes to git might be able to answer I'd love to help. Are there any specific things that git does that you wish were done better? I probably won't be able to help with very generic things like "it's complex", but if there's specific drawbacks in some particular commands I might be able to fix them. Or anything else, I'll monitor t…

Sometimes I almost lose my mind over these situations where git on windows reports a permissions change (git status claims a diff) but there is no way to commit nor revert. This happens maybe once per year and I’ve no idea what a proper fix is. Typically blocks rebasing etc but revert and commit can’t fix it. (Apologies for the poor and ranty bug report.)

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#47
post #44
post #42

I've got some patches in this release. If anyone's got question that someone who contributes to git might be able to answer I'd love to help. Are there any specific things that git does that you wish were done better? I probably won't be able to help with very generic things like "it's complex", but if there's specific drawbacks in some particular commands I might be able to fix them. Or anything else, I'll monitor t…

I'm not always very happy with the conflicts git rebase gives me. For example when I try to bring an old feature branch forward, or when I have two private branches with a common history that I've touched on one side and want rebase to apply my history change onto the other branch, I'm often made to resolve a lot more conflict that seems necessary. There are scripts like git-imerge that give some much nicer conflicts…

They have shipped a new default merging strategy, 'ort', that is supposedly better than the previous default strategy at resolving this kind of issue. You should probably try and see if it makes any difference.

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#48
post #46
post #42

I've got some patches in this release. If anyone's got question that someone who contributes to git might be able to answer I'd love to help. Are there any specific things that git does that you wish were done better? I probably won't be able to help with very generic things like "it's complex", but if there's specific drawbacks in some particular commands I might be able to fix them. Or anything else, I'll monitor t…

Sometimes I almost lose my mind over these situations where git on windows reports a permissions change (git status claims a diff) but there is no way to commit nor revert. This happens maybe once per year and I’ve no idea what a proper fix is. Typically blocks rebasing etc but revert and commit can’t fix it. (Apologies for the poor and ranty bug report.)

git config core.filemode false ?

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#49

Related: it's been a year since Pijul ( https://pijul.org ) began working towards 1.0 ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032956 ). Seems to be coming along nicely, they're in alpha now and it's showing.

I keep checking in on that. In my case what I need to start seriously using it is two-way git interop. I need to be able to work in pijul locally and "publish" somehow to git. So far that still doesn't seem to exist.

Re: Highlights from Git 2.34

#50
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not always very happy with the conflicts git rebase gives me. For example when I try to bring an old feature branch forward, or when I have two private branches with a common history that I've touched on one side and want rebase to apply my history change onto the other branch, I'm often made to resolve a lot more conflict that seems necessary. There are scripts like git-imerge that give some much nicer conflicts…

They have shipped a new default merging strategy, 'ort', that is supposedly better than the previous default strategy at resolving this kind of issue. You should probably try and see if it makes any difference.

My understanding was that `merge -sort` is generally faster and has less buggy edge cases, but does it resolve conflict any differently than -s recursive ?
Post reply on HN