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

You already have a Git server

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 454 posts

Re: You already have a Git server

#181

Post by masklinn »

matrss wrote: post #171
masklinn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it less confusing when your fork is also on github?

Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/ . Nevertheless, to avoid ambiguity I usually name my personal forks on GitHub gh- .

> Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/.

Ah yes, I'm sure the remote being called "origin" is what confuses people when they have to push to a refspec with push options. That's so much more straightforward than a button "create pull request".

Re: You already have a Git server

#182

Post by ashton314 »

morshu9001 wrote: post #156
jrm4 wrote: post #149

Cannot emphasize this whole notion enough; Very roughly, Github is to git what gmail is to email. It's mostly probably fine if that's the thing most of everybody wants to use and it works well; but also it's very unwise to forget that the point was NEVER to have a deeply centralized thing -- and that idea is BUILT into the very structure of all of it.

Idk if git was designed to not be used in a centralized way. Like all other common CLIs, it was simply designed to work on your PC or server without caring who you are, and nothing stopped a corp from turning it into a product. Torvalds made git and Linux, then he put Linux on Github.

Git was explicitly designed to be decentralized.

Re: You already have a Git server

#183

Post by AdrianB1 »

tianqi wrote: post #130
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using git since 2007, this only dawned on me last year. Git is especially prone to the sort of confusion where all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways so the culture is to just wing it until you're your own unique kind of wizard who can't tie his shoes because he favors sandals anyhow.

I like this comment. Over the years I've always found that whenever I see others using git, everyone uses it in different way and even for different purposes. This has left me really confused about what is the standard practice of Git exactly.

This is because people have different needs, Git is trying to cover too many things, there are multiple ways to achieve goals and therefore there is no standard practice. There is no single, standard way to cook chicken breast and that is a way simpler thing.

The solution is to set team/department standards inside companies or use whatever you need as a single contributor. I saw attempts to standardize across a company that is quite decentralized and it failed every time.

Re: You already have a Git server

#184

Post by ogig »

bfkwlfkjf wrote: post #95
skydhash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is distributed, meaning every copy is isolated and does not depends on other's copy. Adding remotes to an instance is mostly giving a name to an URL(URI?) for the fetch, pull, push operation, which exchange commits. As Commits are immutable and forms a chain, it's easy to know when two nodes diverge and conflict resolution can take place. From the git-fetch(1) manual page: > Git supports ssh, git, http, and https…

> There's no server. There IS a server, it's the ssh daemon. That's the bit I had never thought about until now.

You can think of the ssh://server/folder as a normal /folder. ssh provides auth and encryption to a remote hosted folder but you can forget about it for the purpose of understanding the nature of git model.

Re: You already have a Git server

#185

Post by pixelmonkey »

jrm4 wrote: post #149

Cannot emphasize this whole notion enough; Very roughly, Github is to git what gmail is to email. It's mostly probably fine if that's the thing most of everybody wants to use and it works well; but also it's very unwise to forget that the point was NEVER to have a deeply centralized thing -- and that idea is BUILT into the very structure of all of it.

This reminded me of another discussion on HN a few months ago. Wherein I was reflecting on how the entire culture of internet standards has changed over time:

"In the 80s and 90s (and before), it was mainly academics working in the public interest, and hobbyist hackers. Think Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, IETF for web/internet standards, or Dave Winer with RSS. In the 00s onward, it was well-funded corporations and the engineers who worked for them. Think Google. So from the IETF, you have the email protocol standards, with the assumption everyone will run their own servers. But from Google, you get Gmail.

[The web] created a whole new mechanism for user comfort with proprietary fully-hosted software, e.g. Google Docs. This also sidelined many of the efforts to keep user-facing software open source. Such that even among the users who would be most receptive to a push for open protocols and open source software, you have strange compromises like GitHub: a platform that is built atop an open source piece of desktop software (git) and an open source storage format meant to be decentralized (git repo), but which is nonetheless 100% proprietary and centralized (e.g. GitHub.com repo hosting and GitHub Issues)." From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42760298

Re: You already have a Git server

#186

Post by Certhas »

velcrovan wrote: post #180
Cheer2171 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't include pull requests, when cloning from github, though. Because GitHub pull requests are a proprietary, centralized, cloud-dependent reimplementation of `git request-pull`. How the "free software" world slid head first into a proprietary cloud-based "open source" world still boils my blood. Congrats, Microsoft loves and owns it all, isn't that what what we always wanted?

When this kind of “sliding” happens it’s usually because the base implementation was missing functionality. Turns out CLI interfaces by themselves are (from a usability perspective) incomplete for the kind of collaboration git was designed to facilitate.

In another post discussion, someone suggested git as an alternative to overleaf, a Google Docs for latex... I guess there are plenty of people with blind spots for things that are technically possible, and usabel to experts, and UI that actually empowers much broader classes of users to wield the feature.

Re: You already have a Git server

#187

Post by tsimionescu »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #119
bfkwlfkjf wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! Only now the dots connected. Thank you!! Edit: hey this is really exciting. For a long time one of the reasons I've loved git (not GitHub) is the elegance of being a piece of software which is decentralized and actually works well. But I'd never actually used the decentralized aspect of it, I've always had a local repo and then defaulted to use GitHub, bitbucket or whatever instead, because I always thought…

And in general, any daemon that manipulates files can be replaced by ssh (or ftp) access and a local program. And most things are files.

BTW, a nice example of this general concept is Emacs' TRAMP mode. This is a mode where you can open and manipulate files (and other things) on remote systems simply by typing a remote path in Emacs. Emacs will then simply run ssh/scp to expose or modify the contents of those files, and of course to run any required commands, such as deleting a file.

Re: You already have a Git server

#188

Post by CGamesPlay »

tangotaylor wrote: post #112

Beware of using this to publish static sites: you can accidentally expose your .git directory to the public internet. I got pwned this way before (by a pentester fortunately). I had to configure Apache to block the .git directory.

But what, exactly, was pwned? Did you have secrets in the git repo?

Re: You already have a Git server

#189

Post by mewpmewp2 »

thyristan wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?

Depends on what you mean by using etc.

If somebody asked me if it's possible to scp my git repo over to another box and use it there or vice versa, I would have said, yes, that is possible. Although I would've felt uneasy doing that.

If somebody asked me if git clone ssh:// ... would definitely work, I wouldn't have known out of the gate, although I would have thought it would be neat if it did and maybe it does. I may have thought that maybe there must be some sort of git server process running that would handle it, although it's plausible that it would be possible to just do a script that would handle it from the client side.

And finally, I would've never thought really to necessarily try it out like that, since I've always been using Github, Bitbucket, etc. I have thought of those as permanent, while any boxes I have could be temporary, so not a place where I'd want to store something as important to be under source control.

Re: You already have a Git server

#190

Post by dogleash »

thyristan wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?

There's definitely generational loss about the capabilities of git. In the beginning, git was a new version control option for people to explore, now git is the thing you learn to collaborate on github/lab/ea. I remember the Chagon book coming out as the peak between dense technical explainers and paint by numbers how-tos.
Post reply on HN