Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oh Shit, Git?

ohshitgit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 275 posts

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#101

Post by lalaithion »

pitaj wrote: post #33
lalaithion wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disconnect between git's beautiful internal model of blobs, a tree of commits, and pointers to commits, and the command line interface is so wild. All of these recipes are unintuitive even if you have a firm grasp of git's model; you also need to know the quirks of the commands! To just look at the first one... wouldn't it be more intuitive for the command line interface to be: # this command exists already; $ gi…

I prefer just using `git switch` because it's easy to remember the flags (and the position of arguments), but you're right, there is a simpler way: git switch -c some-new-branch-name git branch -f master HEAD~

Good to know! Thanks for the tip.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#102

Post by lilyball »

lalaithion wrote: post #29
pitaj wrote: post #3

Some changes I would make: 1. Always use `git switch` instead of `git checkout` 2. Avoid `reset --hard` at all costs. So for the "accidentally committed something to master that should have been on a brand new branch" issue, I would do this instead: # create a new branch from the current state of master git branch some-new-branch-name # switch to the previous commit git switch -d HEAD~ # overwrite master branch to th…

The disconnect between git's beautiful internal model of blobs, a tree of commits, and pointers to commits, and the command line interface is so wild. All of these recipes are unintuitive even if you have a firm grasp of git's model; you also need to know the quirks of the commands! To just look at the first one... wouldn't it be more intuitive for the command line interface to be: # this command exists already; $ gi…

The "move a branch" command is `git push .`. Yes, you can push to the current repo. I have a script called git-update-branch which just does some preflight checks and then runs `git push --no-verify . +$branch@{upstream}:$branch` to reset a branch back to its upstream version.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#103

Post by steveklabnik »

phtrivier wrote: post #89

This will feel very weird in April 2025, when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of git. I was there. And at some point I wondered if I should learn git, darcs, or bazaar, to replace SVN or CVS. Or did I try mercurial too ? I wonder if the "GitHub" effect has basically killed the need for a newcomer in the space of VCS. Maybe at some point, the yak is shaved enough ?

The GitHub effect is real, like all network effects, but that doesn't mean improvement is impossible. I've switched entirely to jj, and it having git compatibility means that I don't need to rely on anyone else to make that happen.

I am growing increasingly frustrated with various aspects of GitHub, and so I hope someday we all move past it too, but I don't think there's as simple of a path forward there.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#104

Post by taberiand »

SebastianKra wrote: post #46

We should start recommending UIs as the default way to learn Git. It would solve a third of these problems and another third wouldn't even come up. If you later decide that the CLI is faster, go ahead. But first, people need to see visually how they can interact with the tree. I like fork.dev, but most clients are pretty similar at this point.

I advocate this with every newbie to git - find a UI that works for you and use it over the cli. Barely anyone listens though, and then they struggle with the cli and make a mess of their branches and fall out of date with main and are scared of rebasing and have many other issues that are solvable with a drag and drop or similar in a UI. I figure it's a sort of masochism.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#106

Post by baobun »

pitaj wrote: post #3

Some changes I would make: 1. Always use `git switch` instead of `git checkout` 2. Avoid `reset --hard` at all costs. So for the "accidentally committed something to master that should have been on a brand new branch" issue, I would do this instead: # create a new branch from the current state of master git branch some-new-branch-name # switch to the previous commit git switch -d HEAD~ # overwrite master branch to th…

5. Teaching `git add .` as default to add changes to the staging area is not ideal. Show adding specific files instead has less room for subsequent "oh shit" and better.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#107

Post by julianeon »

tantalor wrote: post #38

I'm not a git user, but stuff like this really drives home the idea that "git commit" is meaningless, the only thing that matters is when your commits are pushed or merged. It's like saving a textfile. Do you write a little message every time you save a file? No that's silly. Just move on.

I actually use git for my todolist/diary and I have an alias for when I want to save which does git commit -m "whatever." Basically I do that so I can view the updated version in the mobile app.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#108

Post by dasil003 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #97
phtrivier wrote: post #89

This will feel very weird in April 2025, when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of git. I was there. And at some point I wondered if I should learn git, darcs, or bazaar, to replace SVN or CVS. Or did I try mercurial too ? I wonder if the "GitHub" effect has basically killed the need for a newcomer in the space of VCS. Maybe at some point, the yak is shaved enough ?

SVN has always worked for me. You don’t have to “teach” people SVN because it’s intuitive and works just fine for the 99% case. I wish we would all stop larping as 1337 hackerz and just admit that git is overkill for the vast majority of people.

svn is perfectly fine and intuitive as long as you never want to branch and merge

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#109

Post by stouset »

jimbokun wrote: post #58
lalaithion wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disconnect between git's beautiful internal model of blobs, a tree of commits, and pointers to commits, and the command line interface is so wild. All of these recipes are unintuitive even if you have a firm grasp of git's model; you also need to know the quirks of the commands! To just look at the first one... wouldn't it be more intuitive for the command line interface to be: # this command exists already; $ gi…

Are there alternative git command lines that keep the beautiful internals, but implement a more elegant and intuitive set of commands to manage it?

Seconded jujutsu. It's 100% git-compatible and one of those rare birds that is both more powerful and simpler to use in practice due to rethinking some of the core ideas.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#110

Post by stouset »

behnamoh wrote: post #24
bitwize wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ok mate. Hackernews says we should be using jj to manage our rewritten-in-Rust code.

Haha, I'm so glad I didn't fall for the whole rust thing.

Both you and GP, please aim higher for comments on HN.
Post reply on HN