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

Oh Shit, Git?

ohshitgit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 275 posts

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#71

Post by shuntress »

tantalor wrote: post #38

I'm not a git user, but stuff like this really drives home the idea that "git commit" is meaningless, the only thing that matters is when your commits are pushed or merged. It's like saving a textfile. Do you write a little message every time you save a file? No that's silly. Just move on.

Well, it is all local until you push so you can do whatever you want.

With that said, it obviously is not meaningless at a technical level because without the commit there is nothing to push or merge. On top of that, at a non-technical level it can be extremely helpful to record some plain-english prose to describe why you are changing something. If you find yourself doing that too often you need to narrow your definition of what constitutes a "change" and/or be more discerning about what you work on simultaneously.

Out of curiosity, if you do not use git, what do you use for version control and change-management?

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#72

Post by recursive »

antithesis-nl wrote: post #16
doubled112 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you are the help team and it's the first time something goes wrong?

A 'team', by definition, consists of more people than 'you.' And, by the time a '#githelp team' is formed, it's to address patterns to which there are known solutions. One of the many problems with Git, is that these solutions depend very, very much on the structure of the repo and the common practices of its users. So, instead of executing random commands from the Internet, just ask. Please! Or, if there's truly nob…

> A 'team', by definition, consists of more people than 'you.'

I'm the resident git expert, but not by choice. There's more that I don't know than that I do. It's not uncommon that I need to use internet recipes to un-wedge someone's clone.

> Or, if there's truly nobody going to be around, give in and recreate the repo. You'll save yourself so much pain in the long run...

This is insane. There are a dozen other people using the remote, not to mention a whole CI/CD build configuration.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#73

Post by frakt0x90 »

I'm not proud of it, but my #1 "Oh shit" git operation is to just delete my local repo, reclone, and reapply the changes. Works really well for me 95% of the time. The rest I ask dev ops guy to help.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#75

Post by mrshu »

pitaj wrote: post #3

Some changes I would make: 1. Always use `git switch` instead of `git checkout` 2. Avoid `reset --hard` at all costs. So for the "accidentally committed something to master that should have been on a brand new branch" issue, I would do this instead: # create a new branch from the current state of master git branch some-new-branch-name # switch to the previous commit git switch -d HEAD~ # overwrite master branch to th…

Not trying to defend the choice of `git checkout` over `git switch` (and `git restore`) but they were introduced in v2.23 of Git [0], which was released about 5 years ago [1]. If you take a look at their help pages, they still include a warning that says

> THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE.

Granted, it has been in there for basically as long as the command(s) existed [2] and after 5 years perhaps it might be time to no longer call it experimental.

Still, it does seem like `git checkout` might be a bit more backwards compatible (and also reflective of the time when this website was originally created).

[0] https://github.com/git/git/blob/757161efcca150a9a96b312d9e78...

[1] https://github.com/git/git/releases/tag/v2.23.0

[2] https://github.com/git/git/commit/4e43b7ff1ea4b6f16b93a432b6...

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#76

Post by Terr_ »

lalaithion wrote: post #29
pitaj wrote: post #3

Some changes I would make: 1. Always use `git switch` instead of `git checkout` 2. Avoid `reset --hard` at all costs. So for the "accidentally committed something to master that should have been on a brand new branch" issue, I would do this instead: # create a new branch from the current state of master git branch some-new-branch-name # switch to the previous commit git switch -d HEAD~ # overwrite master branch to th…

The disconnect between git's beautiful internal model of blobs, a tree of commits, and pointers to commits, and the command line interface is so wild. All of these recipes are unintuitive even if you have a firm grasp of git's model; you also need to know the quirks of the commands! To just look at the first one... wouldn't it be more intuitive for the command line interface to be: # this command exists already; $ gi…

> The disconnect between git's beautiful internal model of blobs, a tree of commits, and pointers to commits, and the command line interface is so wild

Something I heard somewhere that stuck with me: git is less less of a Version Control System, and more of a toolkit for assembling your own flavor of one.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#77

Post by shuntress »

CharlesW wrote: post #50
amelius wrote: post #48

This is why I run Git inside Git, as the latter allows me to undo anything I do within the former.

As a Gitginner I'm wondering if this a good joke that went "wooooosh", or if this has something to do with submodules, or…?

Git manages pretty much everything by using the `.git` folder created by `git init` and there is (as far as I am aware) nothing stopping you from going into that .git folder and running init again there to start using git to manage the internal state of your repository. At least... that is what I assumed the joke was.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#78

Post by reaperducer »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #74

My hot take is that Git isn't nearly as hard as the endless blogs pretend.

Git is a technology that was invented to simplify things that ended up getting so complex over time that an entire industry started up around it to try to make it simple again.

See also: Docker. Probably lots of others.

Re: Oh Shit, Git?

#80

Post by dalia-reds »

jimbokun wrote: post #58
lalaithion wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disconnect between git's beautiful internal model of blobs, a tree of commits, and pointers to commits, and the command line interface is so wild. All of these recipes are unintuitive even if you have a firm grasp of git's model; you also need to know the quirks of the commands! To just look at the first one... wouldn't it be more intuitive for the command line interface to be: # this command exists already; $ gi…

Are there alternative git command lines that keep the beautiful internals, but implement a more elegant and intuitive set of commands to manage it?

Check out jujutsu or jj (same thing). It's its own VCS, but it uses git as a backend, so it works with GitHub and other git integrations
Post reply on HN