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

211–220 of 454 posts

Re: You already have a Git server

#211

Post by rpcope1 »

skydhash wrote: post #36
bfkwlfkjf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense... Even someone who knows that git isn't GitHub might not be aware that ssh is enough to use git remotely. That's actually the case for me! I'm a HUGE fan of git, I mildly dislike GitHub, and I never knew that ssh was enough to push to a remote repo. Like, how does it even work, I don't need a server? I suspect this is due to my poor understanding of ssh, not my poor understand of git.

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…

Sort of related, but given that FTP is supported, I wonder how much work it would take to use telnet as a transport.

Re: You already have a Git server

#212

Post by general1465 »

jonhohle wrote: post #153
general1465 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because git is hard to use and full of commands which are making no sense. Eventually people will learn to just clone, pull, push and occasionally merge and be done with it.

People said the same thing about “advanced” operations with cvs and svn (and just called their admin for p4 or source safe). But I really don’t understand the sentiment. Managing code is one of the cornerstones of software engineering. It would be like refusing to learn how to use a screwdriver because someone really just wants to hammer things together. The great thing about $your-favorite-scm is that it transcends…

> Managing code is one of the cornerstones of software engineering. It would be like refusing to learn how to use a screwdriver because someone really just wants to hammer things together.

Ok, then make the commands make sense. For example 90%+ people has no idea what rebase does, yet it is a useful command.

People does not want to learn with git outside of what works, because they can't experiment. The moment they will "hold it wrong" whole repo will break into pieces, unable to go forward or backwards. Hopefully they did not commit.

Git feels like a hammer covered in razor blades. The moment you will try to hold it differently you will cut yourself and somebody else will need to stich you up.

Re: You already have a Git server

#213

Post by paulddraper »

Cheer2171 wrote: post #140
webstrand wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git clone --mirror is another good one to know, it also makes a bare repository that is an exact clone (including all branches, tags, notes, etc) of a remote repo. Unlike a normal clone that is set up for local tracking branches of the remote. It doesn't include pull requests, when cloning from github, though.

> 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?

Having a web interface was really appreciated by users, it would seem.

Re: You already have a Git server

#214

Post by haskellshill »

rco8786 wrote: post #138
haskellshill wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways What? Knowing that a git repo is just a folder is nowhere near "expert" level. That's basic knowledge, just like knowing that the commits are nodes of a DAG. Sadly, most git users have no idea how the tool works. It's a strange situation, it'd be like if a majority of drivers didn't know how to change gears.

The majority of drivers DON’T know how to change gears. You are simultaneously saying that something is not expert level knowledge while acknowledging that most people don’t know it. Strange.

"Expert level knowledge" implies something more to me than simply few people knowing about it. It's ridiculous to say that knowing how to change gears makes you an expert driver, even if a minority know how to do it (such as in the US e.g.)

Re: You already have a Git server

#215

Post by [deleted] »

haskellshill wrote: post #132
__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.

> all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways What? Knowing that a git repo is just a folder is nowhere near "expert" level. That's basic knowledge, just like knowing that the commits are nodes of a DAG. Sadly, most git users have no idea how the tool works. It's a strange situation, it'd be like if a majority of drivers didn't know how to change gears.

[deleted]

Re: You already have a Git server

#216

Post by [deleted] »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #193
fingerlocks wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

If you are working in a large corp and not your own side project, that honestly does sound like a bad idea.

[deleted]

Re: You already have a Git server

#217

Post by jcgl »

ziofill wrote: post #169

What is it with code on blog posts where fonts have uneven size and/or font types (e.g. italics mixed in with regular)? I see this from time to time and I wonder if it’s intentional.

Found a solution to this recently (this is not my blog): https://nathan.rs/posts/fixing-ios-codeblocks/

CSS needs some tweaking for iOS Safari, I guess.

Re: You already have a Git server

#218

Post by chuckadams »

rpcope1 wrote: post #211
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…

Sort of related, but given that FTP is supported, I wonder how much work it would take to use telnet as a transport.

Doable. It would basically be ssh but without encryption. You'd have to bang out login by hand, but "username\npassword\n" will probably work, might need a sleep inbetween, and of course you'll have to detect successful login too. Oh, and every 0xff byte will have to be escaped with another 0xff

At that point, may as well support raw serial too.

Supporting rlogin on the other hand is probably as simple as GIT_SSH=rlogin

Re: You already have a Git server

#219

Post by fingerlocks »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #193
fingerlocks wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

If you are working in a large corp and not your own side project, that honestly does sound like a bad idea.

Please, elaborate. I can share my screen with coworkers and talk about all sorts of confidential things, and I can even give them full remote access to control everything if I wished. So why would pushing a some plain text code directly to their machine be so fundamentally different than all the other means of passing bits between our machines?

Re: You already have a Git server

#220

Post by pastel8739 »

Certhas wrote: post #186
velcrovan wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you actually use the live collaboration features of overleaf, sure, it’s not a replacement. But lots of people use overleaf to write latex by themselves. The experience is just so much worse than developing locally and tracking changes with git.
Post reply on HN