371–380 of 717 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this just the same thing as `git mv`?
I don't think so, but I'm not sure. It seems to imply that renaming a file without using `lore stage` subcommands will record a delete and an add, meaning that changes made in a branch prior to the rename won't automatically propagate. Git will detect this without using it's own mv command.
As long as Epic Games is anti Linux I will never use any Epic Games product. Count on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're actually saying it's better than `git mv`, because it actually records the move, unlike Git.
I think they're saying the opposite. It won't detect a filesystem-level move. It will simply record a delete and create without the relationship. Git does record the rename, though: ~/work/tmp/repo git init . --quiet ~/work/tmp/repo master echo 'foo' > foo.txt ~/work/tmp/repo master? git add . ~/work/tmp/repo master+ git commit -m "create" --quiet ~/work/tmp/repo master mv foo.txt bar.txt # no `git mv` ~/work/tmp/rep…
No it doesn't. Git knows that file A was deleted and file B was created, and if they have the same content then it will guess that it was a rename. But it's a heuristic that doesn't always work. E.g. I think it doesn't try to guess for large diffs, and it doesn't work if you modify the file in the same commit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sucks, git is so absolutely horrible. It's crazy to me that nobody has made anything better yet. Although I could start that myself and yet have not.
There are some projects: * https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj * https://nest.pijul.com/pijul/pijul
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so, but I'm not sure. It seems to imply that renaming a file without using `lore stage` subcommands will record a delete and an add, meaning that changes made in a branch prior to the rename won't automatically propagate. Git will detect this without using it's own mv command.
No they're saying that it will explicitly record the move, unlike Git which has to guess (it often fails).
Just today as I pushed some changes to Github, I was thinking how user-unfriendly Git's UI is: Enumerating objects: 5, done. Counting objects: 100% (5/5), done. Delta compression using up to 10 threads Compressing objects: 100% (3/3), done. Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 290 bytes | 290.00 KiB/s, done. Total 3 (delta 2), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (2/2), completed with 2 local obje…
Just today as I pushed some changes to Github, I was thinking how user-unfriendly Git's UI is: Enumerating objects: 5, done. Counting objects: 100% (5/5), done. Delta compression using up to 10 threads Compressing objects: 100% (3/3), done. Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 290 bytes | 290.00 KiB/s, done. Total 3 (delta 2), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (2/2), completed with 2 local obje…
Objects are your files. Underlying git is a content-addressable filesystem. The objects are referenced by trees. A tree is just a directory. The trees are then referenced by commits and/or tags into a DAG with named pointers into various parts of it (which are your branch and tag references): https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-Objects Because it would be terribly in-efficient to have a bunch of loose ob…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably unacceptable as many would have built tooling around the specific default behaviors.
If tooling is relying on the output format of porcelain commands, it's wrong. The output of various subcommands have already changed more than once.
At least they gave us the `--porcelain` flag, meant exactly for this use case, to make the output format of porcelain commands never change. Dumb flag name, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something else that git isn't good at: permissions. In gamedev, you might have proprietary work that you want to restrict to certain users. In P4, you can add restrictions to certain directories for only those who have signed the required NDAs. That's not something that you can do in git: it's all or nothing. Maybe you can set something up with submodules, but that's going to upend your repository if you hadn't plann…
That always seemed crazy to me about git. Permissions are a pretty basic enterprise offering. Does Gitlab do better with this?
Plenty of not-very-granular "enterprise" systems out there, it's not exactly unique to not always have full ACLs on the smallest of objects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll chip in here and say theres ime a world of difference between the amount of condescension and acerbic noise produced by Blow versus Casey. Casey comes of as grumpy but fundamentally pretty respectful in the stuff I’ve seen him in.
I have only seen Casey's writing in the whole "why is the terminal so slow" debacle, but he was a massive jerk in that. He was right! But still a jerk.
Whereas JB actively thinks you're an idiot, and the things you do are idiotic because of your stupidity, period.