So you're going to git gud?
git out
git your pants
Sit and git
if u ever get a tricky merge conflict, just
git push --force. this automatically works out the right code to keep (your own)Also, a way to never have to work again!
Except if you're an employer in a very small company.
Source: my boss did this at the first company I worked at.
Highly recommend bookmarking https://ohshitgit.com, it'll steer you right 👍
lemme rebase the main branch onto my branch.
two minutes later
1 merge conflict of 57 [abort] [continue]
this is easily fixed by copy pasting the files into a new directory and never opening git again out of fear
Project managers hate this one weird trick!
One key thing that can help you wrap your head around rebasing is that branches get switched while you're doing it; so, say you're on branch
featureand dogit rebase master, for any merge conflict, whatever's marked "current" will be onmasterand what's "incoming" is fromfeature.There's also
git rererethat should in theory remember a resolution you do between two branches and reuse it every time after the first; I've rarely used it in practice; it would happen for long lived branches that don't get merged.
Pro tip: If your code gets flogged by git, you can always get revenge with
git reflog😉Learning git is very easy. For example, to do it on Debain, one simply needs to run,
sudo apt install lazygitLazyGit may actually be black magic from Satan to tempt programmers into sin. And to that I say: 'where is a goat I can sacrifice to my dark lord?'
I'd still probably prefer the usual CLI for setup, commits, pushes etc. but this looks like a godsend for any branching/rebasing operations!
Git is a great invention but it has a few design flaws. There are too many ways to confuse it or break it, using commands that look correct, or just forgetting something. I ended up writing simple wrapper script codebase to fix it. Since then no problems.
It was conceived for experts so the new user experience is shit and the UI is not intuitive. But it has become such a widespread standard that it is very hard to completely overhaul the UI.
TBH compared to the old versioning system people used to use like SVN and Mercurial. Git is a godsend. Just taking your time in learning and not using a GUI client works wonders in learning how it works. Especially when all the GUI clients are basically a collection of commands being executed so if you fuck things up on CLI you know what happened vs using GUI.
Yes you couldn't change something so widely used. Look what happened with python 3.
Fortunately there's already a tradition among Git users of building a UI on top of the git UI. My project is just a slightly better version of those. It lays a simple sensible interface on top of the chaotic Git interface.
Yeah. It's got no abstraction between the UI and the implementation. You just want to manage code versions, but to use Git, you need to learn how to manage history graphs.
Literally.
Oh, you haven't seen my
lack ofskill then.Show me.
This has been the best git tutorial I’ve come across so far. Nicely interactive and gamified. https://learngitbranching.js.org/
This is great, but I just want to say that the best way to use git is to simply stop doing so much in one branch. Branches should not last longer than a week, ideally
Just rebase your life already
...not by choice, because if I don't I'll lose my job
Great meme, and I'm sure op knows this, but for anyone else who is curious...
007 in theory means:
- 00: you have already committed your code to your local code base
- 7: When you try to merge your code with everyone else's there are 7 files that others have worked on since you last refreshed your local code base.
To resolve this, you need to go file by file and compare your changes with the changes on the remote code. You need to keep the changes others have made and incorporate your own.
You can use
git diff file_nameto see the differences.If you have made small changes, it's easier to pull and force an overwrite of your local code and make changes again.
However multiple people working on the same files is usually a sign of organizational issues with management. Ie, typically you don't want multiple people working on the same files at the same time, to avoid stuff like this.
If you're not sure, ask someone that knows what they're doing before you follow any advice on Lemmy.
this is bad advice. Never force git to do anything. If you're forcing something you're doing it wrong.
you can always
git fetch -a; git merge -X theirs remote-branchor rebase your branch.If I get a big conflict and I know my change is trivial, I feel perfectly okay doing git fetch git reset --hard whatever and then reapplying my simple change as a new commit. Sort of a bootleg rebate.
I hear what you're saying.
First, I hard disagree with you. Overwriting my local version of code is a parachute - not an ideal landing, but better than merging by hand.
Also, my comment was not an attempt to teach everything about git, just to explain what is happening in simple terms, since git requires a lot of experience to understand what those messages mean.
If you use a squash workflow, you're going to be force pushing a ton.
Never force git to do anything. If you're forcing something you're doing it wrong.
This is bad advice. Better advice would be "know and understand your tool, and know the consequences of your actions".
Lol what's git?
git gud. HA, GOTTEM
Yes you did
It's what americans from a rural area say when they want you to go away.
is what people who don't know vim and rsync have to use to mimic 1% of our power
I just did myself an eye injury due to rolling them so much
It's the thing you use to create a local copy of the main code base, and then merge your changes back in.
OP hasn't done anything, and there's 7 conflicts between his code and main. Presumably because someone else merged their changes in the time between when OP pulled his local copy and tried to push his (non-existent) changes.
A very complicated way to do
My project My project (1) My project WORKING My project (2) My project (2) (1)Lol
git gud
I prefer rebasing on destination branch before merging. When merging you get all the conflicts at the same time. When rebasing you can address conflicts from one commit at a time. Untangling multiple small knots is easier than one huge spaghetti. Also commit history will be much cleaner.
Go, Team Rebase!
When we switched from svn, we had to figure out git with submodules.. that was fun
sccs, rcs, cvs... after that it's a blur of new systems every year or two
sccs
1973
rcs
1982
git
2005
How long are your years?
Maybe they're born on a leap year...
And a dog?
Subversion is as good as it can get with centralized version control system.
CVS is only one step up above FTP file server for all your code.
I'd agree if anyone actually used the distributed nature of DVCS
or for people who don't have a week to dedicate to learning utterly deranged nonsense, just use sublime merge and never look back.
sublime merge is pretty great, but having a working familiarity with the underlying tool is invaluable when shit inevitably goes sideways while collaborating
So many orphaned branches... Poor things.
If you can't use git I don't see how you're gonna do with other things. It's dead simple.
Solving merge conflicts or rebasing is not simple
It's doable once you know what you're doing. I can do it all via the cli, but I personally use gitkraken most of the time and it's just so much easier and more ergonomic.
I also see a lot of the Devs who insist they know what they're doing create horrible messes of their branches super easily via the commit tree. People should just use whatever works best for them to get the job done.
If it was dead simple you wouldn't need to learn 10 new concepts and google commands regularly even after using it for a couple of years. You probably forgot how you struggled at first. I have taught it multiple times and I see how beginners struggle.
I followed this guide when I was starting out with it: https://rogerdudler.github.io/git-guide/
Learning enough git to be able to contribute to a codebase takes like 10-15 minutes. Maybe an hour if it's a more organized project that requires feature branches. It's when you wanna do more complicated things (basically anything related to rebasing or modifying the history) that it gets complicated. But once you've mastered that part, you're an expert at the tool already, and that's not necessarily what everyone expects.
It's not THAT complicated but I wouldn't call it dead simple. When you understand how git works internally yeah it's pretty simple but people usually start with the idea that it's a tool to put your code on a server to synchronize with other people and only later learn that you have both a local and a remote (or multiple remote) tree and how the tree really works.
I think the problem is most git 101 tutorials teach it wrong, IMO the best git tutorial is this: https://wildlyinaccurate.com/a-hackers-guide-to-git/
Unfortunately it's pretty dense so it's gonna scare off a lot of newbies.
I would actually say it's VERY complicated but in daily work you probably need like 5 commands and those aren't hard at all.
Its not dead simple but its also not extremely complex.
I'm currently working with some interns and there's just concepts they were never exposed to. Without decent mentoring, git can be difficult because a lot of the workflow does come with experience.
That being said everyone needs to stop acting like its an impossible task to properly do source control. There is some truth that if you don't care enough to do your source control, you don't care enough to write decent code. Its not a moral failing, just take some pride in your craft.
Show the newbies how to care and they'll care enough to want to do it right. Measure twice, cut once and all that.
It's definitely not simple to use but I agree that the conceptual model it represents is straightforward. I think a lot of the problems people have with git come from not understanding the underlying data structure before learning how to manipulate it.
Honestly, just use a GUI. Graphical user interfaces were designed for a reason. I usually use SourceTree or the Git functionality built in to Visual Studio or VS Code.
It's good to know how things work under-the-hood (e.g understand Git's object model, some basic commands, etc) but don't feel like you need to use the command-line for everything.
In my experience, using GUIs is how people fuck themselves, and then I have to unfuck them via the command line.
Git's interface is bad, yes. It has a step learning curve, yes. But I truly think the only real way to overcome those obstacles is to learn how git works, learn all the nitty gritty details, not hide from them.
I use a GUI (GitKraken) to easily visualise the different branches I'm working on, the state of my local vs. the remote etc. I sometimes use the gui to resolve merge conflicts. 99 % of my gut usage is command line based.
GUI's definitely have a space, but that space is specifically doing the thing the command line is bad at: Visualising stuff.
lazygit or tig are terminal interfaces for git. very nice, best of both worlds imo. every action shows the git command ran at the bottom, and its a lot easier to see at a glance the status, diff, log, etc.
My take is use a GUI for anything read-only/nondestructive (i.e. anything that won't modify your local or remote state). It's nice for example to compare the state of two branches.
For anything that does changes make sure you know what's happening under the hood, otherwise you might shoot yourself in the foot. It's convenient for example to do a commit and push in one go, but then you lose the ability to edit any changes (you're forced to either do another commit, or change your local commit and force push).
In VSCode you can go to the Output pane and switch to Git - there you'll see everything that gets done through Git's CLI for whatever you do through the GUI (although it can be a bit noisy); same goes other GUI utils.
This week? I've been using it for years and I'm still learning it
so do ya'll like git or git in a hub?
I swear to God sometimes git just conjures merge conflicts out of nothing.
coffee
It do be like that sometimes.
