Oh shit, git (2016)

Post by q3k » Tue, May 14, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #146

q3k wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HEAD~ means 'the second to last commit in the current branch' (ie. the second to last when you `git log`). git reset means 'point the current branch to this commit instead of wherver it's pointing now' (branches in git are just pointers to commits) git reset --hard means 'also reset the state of the checkout and staging area to be in sync with the commit' Thus, the entire spell means 'reset the current branch to make…

[Edit: It seems that I was mistaken but I'm leaving this up to illustrate the confusion. In my experience "second to last" isn't common and "next to last" is much more common, which I think is why I was confused because I thought they were different, but apparently they are the same. I wonder if there is a regional usage pattern to these phrases. ] This seems like mistake or a non-standard usage of the english phrase…

Post by gwright » Tue, May 14, 2019, 1:20 PM UTC

q3k wrote: post #161

gwright wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Edit: It seems that I was mistaken but I'm leaving this up to illustrate the confusion. In my experience "second to last" isn't common and "next to last" is much more common, which I think is why I was confused because I thought they were different, but apparently they are the same. I wonder if there is a regional usage pattern to these phrases. ] This seems like mistake or a non-standard usage of the english phrase…

I don't know (definitely not a native English speaker), but Wikitionary seems to agree with me: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/second_to_last#English .

Post by jhauris » Tue, May 14, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #35

_7fvc wrote: post #20

Reading this article, I realize that I'm old now. I still remember wrestling with cvs, svn. Merge, branch were slow and even more challenging. It was much easier to mess up and so difficult to rewind. When I first learned git, I thought it's pretty neat. It solves merge, branch, rewind problems. Git is one of the things in life that doesn't work like the way we think. But it turns out to be a better way.

I’m torn. Practically Mercurial feels like it should be the winner. The commands are more uniform and predictable. That’s not all it has going for it either. Mercurial has a concept of commit stages to make history rewriting safer. It has a commit model that enables you to work on and manipulate branches of commits seamlessly, without needing named branches. It has not just a tree of commits but also each commit trac…

Post by jchw » Tue, May 14, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #69

jchw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hg actually does go beyond Git in many areas; I did outline a few but my favorites are the improved commit model (stages, natural branching, rewrite tracking,) the commands Git doesn’t have (absorb, evolve,) and the extensibility (see Facebook extensions.) Sure, the model is similar and Fossil is different. But that is kind of an important note. If Fossil can’t be compared on the same level, maybe that’s a sign it so…

> If Fossil can’t be compared on the same level, maybe that’s a sign it solves fundamentally different problems. Or Fossil provides a superset of the others. Like comparing a corkscrew, which only opens bottles of wine, to a swiss army knife that has a corkscrew. They both solve the same problem, but one of them also solves other problems and is generally a more useful tool to keep around in your pocket. The world di…

Post by bloopernova » Tue, May 14, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

lunchables wrote: post #149

dzdt wrote: post #115

Am I the only one who reads "reflog" as "re-flog", that is, to be painfully whipped again?

I will now forever. Reminds me of when you read "therapist" as "the rapist".