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

I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

spencer.wtf

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 273 posts

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#251

Post by 1718627440 »

Timwi wrote: post #250
1718627440 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was only a single standard before, so there was no reason why a company should make any company specific standard. The need for companies to make a standard only exists, since the master to main change, because now there are two standards.

I would argue there is still only one standard and it's main.

Except git init still creates branches named master without configuration (although with a warning), which will only change in 3.0 for obvious reasons, and tons of people (including me) still use master, and old projects don't just vanish.

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#252

Post by WickyNilliams »

lloeki wrote: post #247
WickyNilliams wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm that might be nice actually. I like not conflating those two things, but as you say if the repo is already init'd then there's no chance it'll be used for the wrong purpose. In any case the main thrust was just to avoid embeddings assumptions about branch names in your scripts :)

> I like not conflating those two things Fair enough! It simply occurred to me that if your `user.defaultBranch` is set to e.g `trunk` then presumably when you `git init` you also want it to create a `trunk` branch, ergo `init.defaultBranch` would be set to the same value, ergo... irrespective of naming, could they actually be the same thing ? I can see a case for keeping them apart too though.

That's a good point, I think I will update my scripts to use this instead :)

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#253

Post by DangitBobby »

Griffinsauce wrote: post #239
nicoburns wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does your company not migrate to one standard? Github has this functionality built in, and it's also easy enough to do with just git. I'm personally a huge fan of the master-> main changejus5t because main is shorter to type. Might be a small win, but I checkout projects' main branches a lot.

It's extremely obvious that "main" is more ergonomic. It's sad that we're so resistant to change (regardless of how valid you think the initial trigger was)

The miniscule (and still arguable, not obvious) "ergonomics" improvement was not and will never be worth the pain.

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#254

Post by 8organicbits »

1718627440 wrote: post #249
8organicbits wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a bad faith question, unfortunate that it was asked multiple times. Blacklist is derived from a definition where black means "evil, bad, or undesirable". When you say that ink is black, you're using a different definition, which relates to color. I don't know if I see the objection to blackbox, which uses a definition of "unknown". Personally, I think the harm is small but I look to people of color for gui…

Blacklist and Whitelist come from the behaviour of light on coloured surfaces. A black surface absorbs all light, a white reflects it. There is also Graylist. I don't know of any connotation of black meaning "evil, bad, or undesirable". If anything black means "missing or vanished". Maybe that is different in your culture, but I never heard of it until now. Tons of things in everyday life are black including the most…

A quick web search for "define black" and "etymology blacklist" readily finds "from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (a sense attested from 1590s, in black book)" and several similar results. But I didn't immediately see an etymology based on absorbing light.

I'd be curious to see a regional reference that shows an absorb/reflect etymology.

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#256

Post by throwaway27448 »

oldestofsports wrote: post #209
parliament32 wrote: post #4

So effectively "I just discovered xargs"? Not to disparage OP but there isn't anything particularly novel here.

It's cool that it comes from CIA, and someone who doesn't know about xargs may just learn something new. What is not to like?

> It's cool that it comes from CIA

What nauseous sentiment. I recommend "The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World" by Douglas Valentine, ISBN 978-0997287011. One of the most evil organizations ever to have existed.

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#257

Post by lazyasciiart »

1718627440 wrote: post #242
lazyasciiart wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, actually, zero people 'must admit' that it was a stupid, user hostile and needlessly complexifying change. I would say any reasonable person would have to agree that a company which didn't bother to set a standard for new repos once there are multiple common options is stupid, user hostile and needlessly complexifying. And if the company does have a standard for new repos, but for some reason you don't explain th…

There was only a single standard before, so there was no reason why a company should make any company specific standard. The need for companies to make a standard only exists, since the master to main change, because now there are two standards.

Yes, and?

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#258

Post by 1718627440 »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #148
MathiasPius wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pull another branch without switching first: git switch my-test-branch ... git pull origin main:main git rebase main

You can also rebase directly on the remote branch git fetch git rebase origin/main

> git rebase origin/main

When is that command actually useful? When you want to rebase it is likely because your local and the upstream branch have diverged, so this would just result in weird conflicts, because origin/main is no longer an ancestor to main. Wouldn't you want to use something like:

    git rebase $(git merge-base main origin/main) main --onto=origin/main
or

    git rebase origin/main@{1} main --onto=origin/main

?

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#259

Post by ear7h »

themafia wrote: post #183
ear7h wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, the term comes from bitkeeper which does refer to master/slave. See this email for some references: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

Does git use "slave?" Then does simply performing a search on bitkeepers documents for "slave" then automatically imply any particular terminology "came from bitkeeper?" Did they take it from bitkeeper because they prefer antiquated chattel slavery terminology? Is there any actual documents that show this /intention/? Or did they take it because "master" without slave is easily recognizable as described above which a…

Does asking rhetorical questions count as effective argumentation?

If I do enough sealioning will my unsupported thesis be belived?

What about imposing my modern perspective into a chain of historical events to prove my own perspective?

Further, I'm going to use technical jargon to get around Occam's razor.

You seem very serious about this, I think wasting time on something silly could be good for you.

Re: I found a useful Git one liner buried in leaked CIA developer docs

#260

Post by ear7h »

defen wrote: post #177
ear7h wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, the term comes from bitkeeper which does refer to master/slave. See this email for some references: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

I'm fully on-board with not using master-slave terminology. I work in the embedded space where those terms were and still are frequently used, and I support not using them any more. But I've been using git pretty much since it was released and I've never heard anyone refer to a "slave repo" or "slave branch". It's always been local repo, local branch, etc. I fully believe these sorts of digital hermeneutics (e.g. usi…

I would have thought someone of such extensive life experience would be more comfortable with the uncovering of an unknown than to characterize it as "driving division and strife". It is undestandable to have a chip on your shoulder in the face of the ageism rooted within the tech industry, but my "digital hermaneutics" is simply a fact and not an attempt at toppling your "stats/prestige" of being a day-1 git user, there is no need to be defensive about it.
Post reply on HN