|
http://flowhub.io watch the video, lmao
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Gazpacho posted:if that weren't enough, it's also apparent in checkout.c 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
double sulk posted:http://flowhub.io full stack
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
AlsoD posted:full stack i think that's british for "likes to dress up in a tron costume and watch anime"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Maybe you're just suffering from stackholm syndrome stackoverflowm syndrome
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
"if"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
double sulk posted:http://flowhub.io web 4.0... has arrived
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:"if" any argument about interface usability that references the source code, however conditionally, is not doing itself favors. if you think the internals of the implementation are at all relevant to judging the clarity of the commands, you need a time-out. get a soda, sing some "free software song", unroll some loops.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
quote:Peer-to-peer full-stack visual programming for your fingers. yup there goes the first seal, hold on to your butts shits about to get real
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MlekMbGCMI
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
You Can Code Too
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
double sulk posted:http://flowhub.io https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dos61_6sss i watched it and i still have no idea what the gently caress this is
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dos61_6sss the future #disrupteverything
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:any argument about interface usability that references the source code, however conditionally, is not doing itself favors. if you think the internals of the implementation are at all relevant to judging the clarity of the commands, you need a time-out. get a soda, sing some "free software song", unroll some loops. if someone has a fundamentally wrong model of the tool in their head due to bad training, the source code can be used to recover (and then describe for other people) the correct model Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:i'm not claiming that the source code has anything to do with clarity, only that it is the ultimate arbiter of how many "totally unrelated things" a command does the source code is not the "ultimate arbiter" of what things are "totally unrelated" because "totally unrelated" is an unavoidably fuzzy and informal assessment. you are trying to respond to subjective critique by appealing to formal documentation and it is not terribly compelling
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:if someone has a fundamentally wrong model of the tool in their head due to bad training, the source code can be used to recover (and then describe for other people) the correct model lol just lol i cant even start a reply
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Max/MSP IN THE CLOUD is gonna change the world folks.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
double sulk posted:http://flowhub.io "tight github integration" keep going i'm almost there
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
"bitcoin friendly payment system" "funded by kickstarter" dear god i'm coming everywhere
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dos61_6sss  this has everything, nodejs, github, and bitcoin e: and kickstarter!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:the source code is not the "ultimate arbiter" of what things are "totally unrelated" because "totally unrelated" is an unavoidably fuzzy and informal assessment. you are trying to respond to subjective critique by appealing to formal documentation and it is not terribly compelling
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:i'm not claiming that the source code has anything to do with clarity, only that it is the ultimate arbiter of how many "totally unrelated things" a command does Yeah, except that you were? Gazpacho posted:it does exactly what the name says, it checks out a branch (which in that particular mode it also creates). this is explicit in the docs and if that weren't enough, it's also apparent in checkout.c "the docs are explicit. if that is not sufficient to make it clear what the command does, then the contents of checkout.c will help." is that not a fair representation of what you said? I think "but the source codes!" is a ridiculous response to "the way these commands interact isn't clear", even though I agree that checkout as a way to select branches is if nothing else consistent with the history of version control tools. Happily, someone has automated away the Sisyphean task of trolling git zealots.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
it's apparent in the code to anyone who is fluent in C. i never once suggested the source code to "help" random people who are confused by the documentation (which is entirely suffcient in this case)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
one would think that you'd understand the implications of "weren't" in that context
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:one would think that you'd understand the implications of "weren't" in that context my username is "subjunctive", i got this
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
"git push origin :branch-name" is the best command it deletes a branch
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
M31 posted:"git push origin :branch-name" is the best command
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:that's really dumb and should be removed That's probably the biggest problem though. Imagine that rather than people writing their own porcelain, or haphazardly moving commands around when they individually don't make sense, a team of interface people did testing, research and came up with an ideal command line structure for git. You don't need to look at the source code or the docs here, how people are actually using and thinking about the product is a far more relevant metric to use for designing the interface. Git is flexible enough that you could do all this without touching the internals too. Its a big undertaking but you could dramatically improve the experience and prevent people doing dumb poo poo in the command line that is inherently destructive. (with no way to confirm that's what you meant or take it back) Probably never happen though, partially because people insist git is 'fine', and I say that as someone who uses it every day, and find its benefits far outweigh these problems in small teams. As the teams get larger, taking on juniors, new people all the time, etc, its kind of more murky though. I know some of the guys I worked with in a contractor job would be basically lost without SourceTree, and even then when things got difficult they needed help from someone who understood the branching model better. While its ones right to cast derision on people who have trouble with basic branch management it is a real thing - just crossing your arms and saying they should be doing/know better won't address the issue. Training helps, but so does a more intuitively designed command line.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dos61_6sss it's even got a medium article, that is mostly about the UI. and it's all in javascript and this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJHT2vARAOQ sinekumquat fucked around with this message at 23:10 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
a lot of that is in github/gerrit/phabricator+arcanist, so there are some options. arcanist cuts my git-related stackexchange searches in half, easily. i'm less bullish on the idea of deeply-researched porcelain. VCS use is sort of a pattern language for development, and i think there's a limit on how well it hangs together because of the need for generality. more people should write wrappers or plugins for git for their stuff, though, because the payoff is huge.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:that's really dumb and should be removed There's probably some dude somewhere who defends the idea saying that `git push remote localname:remotename` is just the same as `git push remote :remotename` where in the latter case you're pushing nothing to the remotename branch, you see, so it gets deleted. At least I wouldn't expect less from git users as a group.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:There's probably some dude somewhere who defends the idea saying that `git push remote localname:remotename` is just the same as `git push remote :remotename` where in the latter case you're pushing nothing to the remotename branch, you see, so it gets deleted. thanks for the actual explanation; i knew i'd seen it somewhere and thought "yes, that's completely logical in a very cold way". it's very unix like that (this is not entirely a complaint)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
"git push remote :branch" was the official and only way to delete remote branches for a good long time, "git push --delete remote branch" came later
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
prefect posted:thanks for the actual explanation; i knew i'd seen it somewhere and thought "yes, that's completely logical in a very cold way". it's very unix like that (this is not entirely a complaint) *nix turbonerd like i said
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:a lot of that is in github/gerrit/phabricator+arcanist, so there are some options. arcanist cuts my git-related stackexchange searches in half, easily. some fucker at work stole my copy of posa 2 and now used copies are like 60 bucks
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
just started poking around nimrod lately. it owns.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
git push origin :branch doesn't bother me at all, you guys get worked up about weird things sometimes
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Sweeper posted:git push origin :branch doesn't bother me at all, you guys get worked up about weird things sometimes
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
I dunno as someone who had no idea what git push origin :branch did it doesn't bother me either I mean, it's not like you would do that accidentally or even have it in your mental model, right? you'd just read about it somewhere and think "huh, that's weird. I guess it kind of makes sense but that's weird." but it's not going to limit anybody's comprehension of git
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Gazpacho posted:i figured shrughes would be the one to say this dont compare me to him ty
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:17
|
|