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/
Highlights from Git 2.34
41–50 of 100 posts
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#42Are 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
#43I'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…
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
#44I'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…
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> 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
#46I'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…
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#47I'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…
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#48I'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
#49Related: 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.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#50Earlier 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.