Sure, I didn't count git add because you can do it with git commit -a. git status/log are the same as the svn equivalents. just like git diff/svn diff. I was mainly referring to regular workflow.
In fact, I think outside of stash (which is an optional, but awesome, feature) fetch and rebase (which I refuse to learn), all commands map 1:1 with svn. That's why I don't get this whole "it takes way more commands/steps in git".
git commit -a -m "[BOOTLIB] Fix yet another bug]" git push
Done.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:48 PM, David Quintana (gigaherz) gigaherz@gmail.com wrote:
My command set is a bit more extended:
git clone -- similar to svn checkout into a new folder git checkout -- for changing the current branch git pull -- effectively the same as "svn update", xcept it gets the entire change history, not just the latest commit data git push [--force] -- for sending changes into the repository git fetch -- downloads stuff but doesn't apply it to the checkout copy git merge -- can be used to merge the remote data (in which case it's like svn update), or to merge from another branch git branch git add git commit git stash save/pop -- can be used to temporarily undo some changes, and be able to recover them afterward git status, git log, ... -- for getting info about the state of the repository and the uncommited changes ... and more I that I use less often
I do agree that it is a bit annoying that git has so much trouble pulling with local changes, and that is the one area where svn just simply works better. In every other aspect, I have come to like the "git way" more.
That said, I avoid commandline git as much as possible. I prefer to use TortoiseGit (in Windows, at home), or SourceTree (at work, where I use a mac, and SourceTree is probably the least shitty frontend for git).
I like to say, that for someone who knows Subversion, learning git starts by realizing that all the usual svn concepts, apply to git, just NOT with the remote repository. The svn-like commands work with the local repository clone, and then it has a separate command set for interacting with remotes. Of course it's not a 1:1 match, but it's a good starting point. If you are able to "catch" that, then learning how to work with git becomes a LOT easier.
On 16 February 2017 at 00:31, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
Why is there a need for anything beyond "git commit" or "git push" or "git pull" to do anything?
Good question. I've never used any other git command other than those (except git checkout). Oh, that's lie, I've also used "git branch", just like on svn, to create a branch.
Sounds like you've never actually used git? I've never rebased in my life, and I don't know what other commands even exist.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git tracking every single merge because you don't rebase. Combined with the fact that git has an upper limit on how much history it can track and the solution literally being to purge history, I'm not exactly sure why all of you are so enthused about it. Unless the team wants to adopt having a single person being responsible for all commits going into the canonical master repo to avoid all of the problems with how git tracks history, the commit log is going to be next to useless for actual tracking of history. If you don't care about the commit history, then sure, go ahead, but I personally would like to be able to easily track changes back cleanly. We get that basically for free with svn right now. With git, the usage patterns that those of you pushing for git are promoting actively works against keeping a clean history.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Sure, I didn't count git add because you can do it with git commit -a. git status/log are the same as the svn equivalents. just like git diff/svn diff. I was mainly referring to regular workflow.
In fact, I think outside of stash (which is an optional, but awesome, feature) fetch and rebase (which I refuse to learn), all commands map 1:1 with svn. That's why I don't get this whole "it takes way more commands/steps in git".
git commit -a -m "[BOOTLIB] Fix yet another bug]" git push
Done.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:48 PM, David Quintana (gigaherz) gigaherz@gmail.com wrote:
My command set is a bit more extended:
git clone -- similar to svn checkout into a new folder git checkout -- for changing the current branch git pull -- effectively the same as "svn update", xcept it gets the
entire
change history, not just the latest commit data git push [--force] -- for sending changes into the repository git fetch -- downloads stuff but doesn't apply it to the checkout copy git merge -- can be used to merge the remote data (in which case it's
like
svn update), or to merge from another branch git branch git add git commit git stash save/pop -- can be used to temporarily undo some changes, and
be
able to recover them afterward git status, git log, ... -- for getting info about the state of the repository and the uncommited changes ... and more I that I use less often
I do agree that it is a bit annoying that git has so much trouble pulling with local changes, and that is the one area where svn just simply works better. In every other aspect, I have come to like the "git way" more.
That said, I avoid commandline git as much as possible. I prefer to use TortoiseGit (in Windows, at home), or SourceTree (at work, where I use a mac, and SourceTree is probably the least shitty frontend for git).
I like to say, that for someone who knows Subversion, learning git
starts by
realizing that all the usual svn concepts, apply to git, just NOT with
the
remote repository. The svn-like commands work with the local repository clone, and then it has a separate command set for interacting with
remotes.
Of course it's not a 1:1 match, but it's a good starting point. If you
are
able to "catch" that, then learning how to work with git becomes a LOT easier.
On 16 February 2017 at 00:31, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
Why is there a need for anything beyond "git commit" or "git push" or "git pull" to do anything?
Good question. I've never used any other git command other than those (except git checkout). Oh, that's lie, I've also used "git branch", just like on svn, to create a branch.
Sounds like you've never actually used git? I've never rebased in my life, and I don't know what other commands even exist.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
That... isnt actually true? I have used repos that spans more than a couple of thousands commits, spanning several years back? Den 16 feb. 2017 3:46 fm skrev "Zachary Gorden" drakekaizer666@gmail.com:
I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git tracking every single merge because you don't rebase. Combined with the fact that git has an upper limit on how much history it can track and the solution literally being to purge history, I'm not exactly sure why all of you are so enthused about it. Unless the team wants to adopt having a single person being responsible for all commits going into the canonical master repo to avoid all of the problems with how git tracks history, the commit log is going to be next to useless for actual tracking of history. If you don't care about the commit history, then sure, go ahead, but I personally would like to be able to easily track changes back cleanly. We get that basically for free with svn right now. With git, the usage patterns that those of you pushing for git are promoting actively works against keeping a clean history.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Sure, I didn't count git add because you can do it with git commit -a. git status/log are the same as the svn equivalents. just like git diff/svn diff. I was mainly referring to regular workflow.
In fact, I think outside of stash (which is an optional, but awesome, feature) fetch and rebase (which I refuse to learn), all commands map 1:1 with svn. That's why I don't get this whole "it takes way more commands/steps in git".
git commit -a -m "[BOOTLIB] Fix yet another bug]" git push
Done.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:48 PM, David Quintana (gigaherz) gigaherz@gmail.com wrote:
My command set is a bit more extended:
git clone -- similar to svn checkout into a new folder git checkout -- for changing the current branch git pull -- effectively the same as "svn update", xcept it gets the
entire
change history, not just the latest commit data git push [--force] -- for sending changes into the repository git fetch -- downloads stuff but doesn't apply it to the checkout copy git merge -- can be used to merge the remote data (in which case it's
like
svn update), or to merge from another branch git branch git add git commit git stash save/pop -- can be used to temporarily undo some changes, and
be
able to recover them afterward git status, git log, ... -- for getting info about the state of the repository and the uncommited changes ... and more I that I use less often
I do agree that it is a bit annoying that git has so much trouble
pulling
with local changes, and that is the one area where svn just simply works better. In every other aspect, I have come to like the "git way" more.
That said, I avoid commandline git as much as possible. I prefer to use TortoiseGit (in Windows, at home), or SourceTree (at work, where I use a mac, and SourceTree is probably the least shitty frontend for git).
I like to say, that for someone who knows Subversion, learning git
starts by
realizing that all the usual svn concepts, apply to git, just NOT with
the
remote repository. The svn-like commands work with the local repository clone, and then it has a separate command set for interacting with
remotes.
Of course it's not a 1:1 match, but it's a good starting point. If you
are
able to "catch" that, then learning how to work with git becomes a LOT easier.
On 16 February 2017 at 00:31, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
Why is there a need for anything beyond "git commit" or "git push" or "git pull" to do anything?
Good question. I've never used any other git command other than those (except git checkout). Oh, that's lie, I've also used "git branch", just like on svn, to create a branch.
Sounds like you've never actually used git? I've never rebased in my life, and I don't know what other commands even exist.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
If git has an upper limit on history, it's the first time I hear about it, and it would be an issue I was simply not aware of. So far as I was aware, git just keeps a parent hash on each commit, and the GC just deletes commits without any reference. In fact, we use Git at my current job, and the history goes back many years, and it seems perfectly capable of tracking it. And no, we don't rebase or squash, ever. We are not allowed to do any operation that changes commit history. So it's quite a mess of merge commits, but even then it's manageable.
I disagree on needing a single person responsible for merges. The the PR workflow we have at my current job is that the developer submits a PR for review, and adds to the PR two other developers, who have to approve the changes or request fixes. Once it's approved, the original developer can click the merge button themselves. For external PRs done by contributors, then one of the reviewers is the responsible for clicking the merge button.
And even if you do choose to require a commit-master, with the way github's merge button works, you can choose to have a merge commit, or to squash & rebase implicitly, and the history ends up with one single commit attributed to all the developers that were involved in the merge. As an example, I have a hobby writing Minecraft mods, and they use Forge to work: https://github.com/MinecraftForge/MinecraftForge/commits/1.11.x -- you'll see many "<someone> commited with LexManos". That's because there's an author, and a commiter, in the git info.
I do agree, git history can get messy, and ugly, and hard to track -- if you abuse merge commits. I, unlike Alex, am a fan of manual rebases, and leaving a clean history before you submit the changes for review. But I understand that constantly rewriting history means you end up with a fabricated history at the end. So the policy choices should probably either be no merges at all, or no rebasing at all. But that's where "git blame" comes in. With a proper tool, you can see exactly who changed a file, and when, and you can use it to track back the history of that file, or that specific line of code.
On 16 February 2017 at 03:45, Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git tracking every single merge because you don't rebase. Combined with the fact that git has an upper limit on how much history it can track and the solution literally being to purge history, I'm not exactly sure why all of you are so enthused about it. Unless the team wants to adopt having a single person being responsible for all commits going into the canonical master repo to avoid all of the problems with how git tracks history, the commit log is going to be next to useless for actual tracking of history. If you don't care about the commit history, then sure, go ahead, but I personally would like to be able to easily track changes back cleanly. We get that basically for free with svn right now. With git, the usage patterns that those of you pushing for git are promoting actively works against keeping a clean history.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
Sure, I didn't count git add because you can do it with git commit -a. git status/log are the same as the svn equivalents. just like git diff/svn diff. I was mainly referring to regular workflow.
In fact, I think outside of stash (which is an optional, but awesome, feature) fetch and rebase (which I refuse to learn), all commands map 1:1 with svn. That's why I don't get this whole "it takes way more commands/steps in git".
git commit -a -m "[BOOTLIB] Fix yet another bug]" git push
Done.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:48 PM, David Quintana (gigaherz) gigaherz@gmail.com wrote:
My command set is a bit more extended:
git clone -- similar to svn checkout into a new folder git checkout -- for changing the current branch git pull -- effectively the same as "svn update", xcept it gets the
entire
change history, not just the latest commit data git push [--force] -- for sending changes into the repository git fetch -- downloads stuff but doesn't apply it to the checkout copy git merge -- can be used to merge the remote data (in which case it's
like
svn update), or to merge from another branch git branch git add git commit git stash save/pop -- can be used to temporarily undo some changes, and
be
able to recover them afterward git status, git log, ... -- for getting info about the state of the repository and the uncommited changes ... and more I that I use less often
I do agree that it is a bit annoying that git has so much trouble
pulling
with local changes, and that is the one area where svn just simply works better. In every other aspect, I have come to like the "git way" more.
That said, I avoid commandline git as much as possible. I prefer to use TortoiseGit (in Windows, at home), or SourceTree (at work, where I use a mac, and SourceTree is probably the least shitty frontend for git).
I like to say, that for someone who knows Subversion, learning git
starts by
realizing that all the usual svn concepts, apply to git, just NOT with
the
remote repository. The svn-like commands work with the local repository clone, and then it has a separate command set for interacting with
remotes.
Of course it's not a 1:1 match, but it's a good starting point. If you
are
able to "catch" that, then learning how to work with git becomes a LOT easier.
On 16 February 2017 at 00:31, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Zachary Gorden drakekaizer666@gmail.com wrote:
Why is there a need for anything beyond "git commit" or "git push" or "git pull" to do anything?
Good question. I've never used any other git command other than those (except git checkout). Oh, that's lie, I've also used "git branch", just like on svn, to create a branch.
Sounds like you've never actually used git? I've never rebased in my life, and I don't know what other commands even exist.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Am 16.02.2017 um 03:45 schrieb Zachary Gorden:
I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git tracking every single merge because you don't rebase.
To give a picture of what he is talking about:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170216/tfchxvni.png (random example repo on GitHub)
You see how parallel streams of history emerge with every new committer when just using git commit, git pull and git push. Commits in the list are not even in chronological order anymore.
Now what is the least painful way to avoid these automatic merges? We don't want to make life harder for any Git user..
- Colin
You can change one config entry and you can forget about merging strategy:
|git config --globalpull.rebase true |
||You just have to force everyone to using it. Then simple git pull automatically rebases. We use it in work for all projects and history is linear. ||
W dniu 16.02.2017 o 09:37, Colin Finck pisze:
Am 16.02.2017 um 03:45 schrieb Zachary Gorden:
I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git tracking every single merge because you don't rebase.
To give a picture of what he is talking about:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170216/tfchxvni.png (random example repo on GitHub)
You see how parallel streams of history emerge with every new committer when just using git commit, git pull and git push. Commits in the list are not even in chronological order anymore.
Now what is the least painful way to avoid these automatic merges? We don't want to make life harder for any Git user..
- Colin
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
--- Ta wiadomość została sprawdzona na obecność wirusów przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Note that rebasing will mean you then later have to force-push into your work branches. And yes, work branches only, please. I strongly recommend against force-pushing to master. Or or pushing to master without a PR, either way.
On 16 February 2017 at 09:43, Rafał Harabień rafalh@reactos.org wrote:
You can change one config entry and you can forget about merging strategy:
git config --global pull.rebase true
You just have to force everyone to using it. Then simple git pull automatically rebases. We use it in work for all projects and history is linear.
W dniu 16.02.2017 o 09:37, Colin Finck pisze:
Am 16.02.2017 um 03:45 schrieb Zachary Gorden:
I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git tracking every single merge because you don't rebase.
To give a picture of what he is talking about:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170216/tfchxvni.png (random example repo on GitHub)
You see how parallel streams of history emerge with every new committer when just using git commit, git pull and git push. Commits in the list are not even in chronological order anymore.
Now what is the least painful way to avoid these automatic merges? We don't want to make life harder for any Git user..
- Colin
Ros-dev mailing listRos-dev@reactos.orghttp://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-
Alex Ionescu -
Colin Finck -
David Quintana (gigaherz) -
Magnus Johnsson -
Rafał Harabień -
Zachary Gorden