Live data from Hacker News

Dura is a background process that watches your Git repositories

github.com

21–30 of 207 posts

Re: Dura is a background process that watches your Git repositories

#21
Cool tool!

It's kind of insane to that in 2022 were still dealing with "save early, save often."

Our tools are so antiquated. Storage is cheap and computers are fast, every keystroke should be persisted somewhere I can recover from rather than having to manually save and commit works in progress.

Re: Dura is a background process that watches your Git repositories

#23
Git has a built-in Ctrl-Z that is called “reflog”. Acknowledging that git’s UI commands such as “reflog” may be technical, and nonstandard, and poorly named, does dura provide something that git doesn’t, and is it a good idea to add yet another application/layer/dependency to the git workflow? Would it be just as effective to add a git alias called “undo”, or something like that?

Re: Dura is a background process that watches your Git repositories

#26
post #11

I see no reason to use this if you commit often and know how to use reflog.

So then don't use it. I prefer not rebasing / editing unless I have to.

What do you mean? The concept of dura is editing. And using reflog isn’t normally a rebase.

Re: Dura is a background process that watches your Git repositories

#28
post #23

Git has a built-in Ctrl-Z that is called “reflog”. Acknowledging that git’s UI commands such as “reflog” may be technical, and nonstandard, and poorly named, does dura provide something that git doesn’t, and is it a good idea to add yet another application/layer/dependency to the git workflow? Would it be just as effective to add a git alias called “undo”, or something like that?

Reflog is a log of refs. If you don’t make commits then then nothing is added to the ref log.

Re: Dura is a background process that watches your Git repositories

#30

Seems like a nice tool, but if you really used git, I don't really see how this situation described at the readme.md could happen :-) you think you just lost days of work

> if you really used git

That really doesn't mean anything.

> I don't really see how this situation described at the readme.md could happen :-)

Start working on a big and complicated refactoring, don't commit because everything's broken and in flux, run the wrong command and lose your changes-in-flight somehow (reset the working copy, revert a file, overwrite a file incorrectly, ...).

Post reply on HN