191–200 of 454 posts
Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
It's like arguing that instead of having salad or fries on the menu with your entree they should only serve fries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I've been subject to claims that a single person can't start a project unless and until an official, centralized repo is setup for them. I've responded with "git init is all that is necessary to get started", but they wouldn't hear it.
You must work at Microsoft? A pound of paperwork for every new repo really shuts down experimental side projects. I showed my colleagues that we can share code via ssh or (painfully) one-drive anytime instead. They reacted like I was asking them to smoke crack behind the dumpsters. “That’s dangerous, gonna get in trouble, no way bro”
Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
Filesystems and folders are foreign and elusive concepts to gen Z. https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-direc...
Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
Yes. I've been subject to claims that a single person can't start a project unless and until an official, centralized repo is setup for them. I've responded with "git init is all that is necessary to get started", but they wouldn't hear it.
Depends on what you mean by "a project". If it's policy related, maybe it's company's policy that all code that is written must be stored in a certain way for multitude of reasons.
#!/bin/sh
set -e
echo -n 'updating... '
git update-server-info
echo 'done. going to dev3'
cd /home/kragen/public_html/sw/dev3
echo -n 'pulling... '
env -u GIT_DIR git pull
echo -n 'updating... '
env -u GIT_DIR git update-server-info
echo 'done.'
This could still fail to update the checkout if it has local changes, but only if they create a merge conflict, and it won't fail to update the bare repo, which is probably what your other checkouts are cloned from and therefore where they'll be pulling from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it less confusing when your fork is also on github?
agreed, you'd need a second name anyway. and probably "origin" and "upstream" is nicer than "github" and "my-fork" because.. the convention seems like it should apply to all the other git hosts too: codeberg, sourcehut, tfs, etc
During the dev / compile / test flow, git makes a lightweight CI that reduces the exposure to your primary repo . Just run `watch -n 60 make` on the target and push using `git push` . The target can run builds without having any access to your primary (GitHub) repo.
One note, xcode and maybe some other clients can't use http "dumb mode". Smart mode is not hard to set up, but it's a few lines of server config more than this hook. TIL about the update options for checked out branch. In practise though usually you want just the .git "bare" folder on server
I feel like this is a bug that Xcode should fix