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

Git undo: We can do better

blog.waleedkhan.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 490 posts

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#201

Post by rjmunro »

thewebcount wrote: post #128

I'm sorry, but how many bits of git's UI do we have to force users to manually replace before we realize that the entire problem is git's UI? Between the tone deaf responses here about "using a GUI client is the problem," to the tone deaf responses of "you just have to learn it's internal architecture," it should be obvious what the problem is. The problem is not just being able to undo a mistake (though that's certa…

There is no doubt that a bunch of the general commands are really poorly named, or mixed together. `git checkout branch` means switch to a branch - that's fine. But `git checkout filename` means "undo changes to the file". What? That's totally insane.

`git branch new-branch-name` means create a new branch. Great, but it doesn't check out the branch, which you want like 99.9% of the time. If you want to do that, you use `git checkout -b new-branch-name`. Yes, a third separate use for git checkout.

Why not (e.g.) `git branch -c new-branch-name` with a config option to make `-c` the default if you want it?

If you rebase and push, it tells you to do a `git pull` to "fix" it, when in every workflow I've ever done, you want to add a `-f` and push away, just be aware that you are intentionally overwriting the remote branch.

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#202

Post by [deleted] »

smilekzs wrote: post #145
pizza234 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using Git via GUI(s)? Between my colleagues, there is a strong correlation between using a GUI, and messing up the repository. I agree that Git's UX is pretty bad (checkout overloading; overlapping between checkout and reset; push overloading... yikes!), however, I believe that in contexts where using Git is a constraint, stop using GUIs is the best strategy one can apply to improve the understanding.

I disagree. First of all, a well-designed Git GUI (examples below) exposes the git's underlying data model to you; in contrast, the CLI obscures it until something breaks and you're forced into it without context. Git operates on a graph and there is simply no way around it. The more you're exposed to the graph, the better you can mentally model it and ask it to do the right things. While there are many half-baked El…

[deleted]

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#203

Post by MereInterest »

urxvtcd wrote: post #135
dheera wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Especially git init --submodule --recursive Or is it git submodule --init --recursive? God I hate this UX so much I usually have a ./fetch-subrepos.sh that runs a bunch of "git clone" commands. And if I push without first pulling, must it always punish me with a merge commit? Can't I say "oh shit I don't want to do this, go back and git pull"?

> And if I push without first pulling I think I know git well, but you got me confused. I've never heard of pushes causing merges. Surely you are talking about pulls, right?

Maybe somebody who has a habit of using --force when pushing. A major downside of rebase-centric workflows is that it teaches you to ignore the safety rails when pushing, or when deleting branches.

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#206

Post by rjmunro »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #154
thewebcount wrote: post #128

I'm sorry, but how many bits of git's UI do we have to force users to manually replace before we realize that the entire problem is git's UI? Between the tone deaf responses here about "using a GUI client is the problem," to the tone deaf responses of "you just have to learn it's internal architecture," it should be obvious what the problem is. The problem is not just being able to undo a mistake (though that's certa…

I feel that I only understand git because I’m forced to use it for years, but the experience could have been a lot less painful. I use a GUI for sure. Do people really diff and resolve big conflicts at a command line? I never figured out how.

Just delete the bits you don't want and `git add`

It helps a lot to set:

git config --global merge.conflictstyle diff3

then you can see the before as well as the 2 changes you are trying to resolve.

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#207

Post by npteljes »

rjmunro wrote: post #201
thewebcount wrote: post #128

I'm sorry, but how many bits of git's UI do we have to force users to manually replace before we realize that the entire problem is git's UI? Between the tone deaf responses here about "using a GUI client is the problem," to the tone deaf responses of "you just have to learn it's internal architecture," it should be obvious what the problem is. The problem is not just being able to undo a mistake (though that's certa…

There is no doubt that a bunch of the general commands are really poorly named, or mixed together. `git checkout branch` means switch to a branch - that's fine. But `git checkout filename` means "undo changes to the file". What? That's totally insane. `git branch new-branch-name` means create a new branch. Great, but it doesn't check out the branch, which you want like 99.9% of the time. If you want to do that, you u…

And if I create a new branch locally, why must I specify what name I'd use for it on the remote? Why would I like an other name I wonder? It's fantastic that it can do this, but the default should be the branch name I'm using and that's that.

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#209

Post by [deleted] »

lamontcg wrote: post #98
handrous wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if I push without first pulling, must it always punish me with a merge commit? Can't I say "oh shit I don't want to do this, go back and git pull"? This is a source of probably 50% of my "ah, fuck, time to undo..." moments with git, these days. I hate that shit. Muscle-memory gets ahead of me and I commit on a shared remote branch, which would be fine given our workflow except that I didn't pull first. What a p…

I guess I have `git pull --rebase` as muscle memory. I would guess there's an easy way to make git do this automatically for you via config so you never forget, but I just never, ever `git pull` Or: > git config --global alias.up '!git fetch && git rebase --autostash FETCH_HEAD' From: https://github.com/JKrag/git-up

[deleted]

Re: Git undo: We can do better

#210

Post by MayeulC »

eric4smith wrote: post #12

Damn, this is such a GREAT idea. I've messed up repos a few times, and it's never good. It's always -- "what's the magic want I have to wave now"? The truth is, while we use git every day, most people really don't understand how it works. There I said it. And I'm not ashamed. I don't really know how Git works. And I think I'm not the only one. What does "git reflog" or "git reset --hard ...." do? What are the implica…

> What does "git reflog" or "git reset --hard ...." do? What are the implications?

This is supposed to be covered in `man git reflog` and `man git reset --hard`. I admit that it could be more readable though. Currently, it's more of a technically-correct introduction than a layman's. I guess it's really more of a documentation for experts. Some have made fun of this: https://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/

In layman's terms, `git reflog` is the history of the positions you were at: you'll see every commit you've visited recently, so as long as something was committed, you won't lose it. It's here in case you lose some commit identifier (for instance you finished rebasing but are not happy with the result: the branch now points to the sad commit. Grab the reflog, copy the commit identifier and reset the branch to point it to where it was before).

And `git reset --hard`... `git reset` changes the branch "tip" (pointer) to another commit: the commit tree always exists. Branches are "named commits". `git reset` moves these tags around. The `--hard` part "just" replaces the entire content of your working directory (including non-committed changes) to the commit you give as a parameter. With no parameters, it just resets to the latest commit in that branch, so it's like saying "clean my working directory back to what was committed, discard my changes". Perfect for losing work.

I agree that git "porcelain" commands are sometimes ill-named and a bit counter-intuitive to grasp. For me, learning git paid of (sort of: I don't spend time fighting my issues, I spend it helping others fix theirs).

I'm keeping an eye on better-designed alternatives like pijul. mercurial is interesting and has better-named command, but I sunk some time learning git already, and know it better, so hg has very little more to offer to me.

Post reply on HN