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

231–240 of 454 posts

Re: You already have a Git server

#231

Post by udev4096 »

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.

It's not. Unless you work at a shitty place, something like what OP mentioned is far from a big deal and most people would wanna know more about it

Re: You already have a Git server

#232

Post by udev4096 »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #195
thwarted wrote: post #127

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.

Depends, what's the reasoning? Because technically anyone can start a project even without Git. Or even without a computer. Someone can use a pen to write code on a paper. 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.

You are missing the whole point. The OP is mentioning how people are so used to using github, that they are so oblivion on using git offline

Re: You already have a Git server

#233

Post by m3047 »

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.

DNS is in the same predicament. :-p

Re: You already have a Git server

#234

Post by tasuki »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #188
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?

I expose the .git directories on my web server and never considered it a problem. I also expose them on GitHub and didn't consider that a problem either...

Re: You already have a Git server

#235

Post by yogishbaliga »

paulddraper wrote: post #213
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?

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

It is also other features such as GitHub workflow, releases, integration with other tools, webhooks etc. that makes it useful.

Re: You already have a Git server

#236

Post by tasuki »

patal wrote: post #178

How would I sync access, if more than one people ssh-pushes onto the git repo? I assume syncing be necessary.

Same as always, with any other remote?

(Use `git pull`? If the different people push to different branches, then there's no conflict and no problem. If you try to push different things into the same branch, the second person will get told their branch is out of date. They can either rebase or - if this is allowed by the repo config - force push over the previous changes...)

Re: You already have a Git server

#237

Post by kragen »

kragen wrote: post #196

You probably want to use a bare repository (git init --bare) rather than `git config receive.denyCurrentBranch updateInstead`, which will cause your pushes to fail if you edit anything locally in the checkout. For http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/ I run a pull from the post-update hook of http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3.git , http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3.git/hooks/post-update , which is short enough…

Also bare repositories are a useful thing to put on USB pendrives.

Re: You already have a Git server

#238

Post by kragen »

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- .

No, it's a normal feature of Git. If I want you to pull my changes, I need to host those changes somewhere that you can access. If you and I are both just using ssh access to our separate Apache servers, for example, I am going to have to push my changes to a fork on my server before you can pull them.

And of course in Git every clone is a fork.

AGit seems to be a new alternative where apparently you can push a new branch to someone else's repository that you don't normally have access to, but that's never guaranteed to be possible, and is certainly very idiosyncratic.

Re: You already have a Git server

#239

Post by kragen »

JamesLeonis wrote: post #165
Sharlin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git was always explicitly a decentralized, "peer to peer" version control system, as opposed to centralized ones like SVN, with nothing in the protocol itself that makes a distinction between a "server" and a "client". Using it in a centralized fashion is just a workflow that you choose to use (or, realistically, one that somebody else chose for you). Any clone of a repository can be a remote to any other clone, and…

I have a use case just for this. Sometimes my internet goes down while I'm working on my desktop computer. I'll put my work in a branch and push it to my laptop, then go to a coffee shop to continue my work.

When I do this I usually push to a bare repo on a USB pendrive.

Re: You already have a Git server

#240

Post by kragen »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #111
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?

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.

With previous version-control systems, such as SVN and CVS, I found that pair programming helps a great deal with this problem. I started using Git after my last pair-programming gig, unfortunately, but I imagine it would help there too.

(I started using Git in 02009, with networking strictly over ssh and, for pulls, HTTP.)

Post reply on HN