|
Shaggar posted:just use subversion.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Space Whale posted:The VAST majority of the time this is the case! you use git revert to make new commits that revert the hosed commits that way everyone can see that there was a hosed commit, that the hosed commit was reverted, and that the unfucked commit comes after the hosed one when you reset and force push your branch you lose all that NAME git-revert - Revert some existing commits SYNOPSIS git revert [--[no-]edit] [-n] [-m parent-number] [-s] [-S[<key-id>]] <commit>... git revert --continue git revert --quit git revert --abort DESCRIPTION Given one or more existing commits, revert the changes that the related patches introduce, and record some new commits that record them. This requires your working tree to be clean (no modifications from the HEAD commit).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:32
|
|
whatever
|
suffix posted:you use git revert to make new commits that revert the hosed commits gently caress, beaten. what this guy said, git-revert to go back to an earlier state if you already pushed your commit earlier, for exactly the stated reason. The new commits allow people to see what happened, and the rollback. Some idiots try to janitor the history in this situation to make it look like it never happen but that is a one way ticket to pain town
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:just use subversion. this altho its annoying when i have to right-click -> clean up because i forgot to close the word document i am trying update over
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
all I know is that I spent was less time fussing around with version control when I used subversion
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
you must have never merged your code with anyone elses
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
rotor posted:all I know is that I spent was less time fussing around with version control when I used subversion you probably aren't following a rigid git workflow. pretty much all the problems people have with git can be traced to this mistake. subversion is so inflexible that you have no choice but to follow the single reasonable workflow it supports. git is so flexible that you can easily gently caress everything up if you don't discipline yourself. kind of reminiscent of the difference between plangs (git) and java/c# (subversion) actually, except that java/c# are more powerful than plangs while git is more powerful than subversion
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
the only reasonable workflow in git makes it work the same as subversion and your idiot developers will always want to use the hosed up workflows if you give them the option so don't give them the option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Doesn't that at least force importers to hire people locally in the chain of production? That sounds like a okay-ish alternative for the country. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
theadder posted:lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
insert tab ä into slot ð
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:you probably aren't following a rigid git workflow. pretty much all the problems people have with git can be traced to this mistake. What is that rigid git workflow? Also are there wrappers over git that force that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
sourcetree
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
AWWNAW posted:sourcetree I could not figure out how to do that in sourcetree. I could in the command line tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:ok yeah that changes things who the hell would trust a programmer that didn't smoke pot
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:who the hell would trust a programmer that didn't smoke pot
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:the only reasonable workflow in git makes it work the same as subversion I know "shaggar was right" is kind of cliche but, well,
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
rotor posted:I know "shaggar was right" is kind of cliche but, well, except git can merge a branch without loving it up completely
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:you must have never merged your code with anyone elses subversion merges are only harder because conflicts are per-file. so really the only extra work is finding a decent merge tool that automerges line by line unless it can't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
quote:Web developer needed following technologies knowledge are PHP, MySQL, HTML,CSS,SASS,JavaScript, JQUERY and others to make a good web application and database. Minimum 5 years experience, need reference projects and we will verify, No Day Dreamers that know theory but don't have the practice (I REPEAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW, DON'T WASTE MY OR YOUR TIME). This project is a contract of 6 months to complete Phase 1 of application website. Website has 3 Phases if we like developer work we will extend the contract that will take over 2 years. This project is a Freelance rather than employment and developer will receive a 1099. If you haven't completed a good Database website on your own don't even bother calling. This is not for university graduates, is for people that have completed projects from beginning to end without any teams to support them. I will be asking to name your price per hour and I will need to see your work as reference. Email me a resume and I will contact you. tempted to reply to this with some obscene number for lols
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:What is that rigid git workflow?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
rotor posted:subversion merges are only harder because conflicts are per-file. so really the only extra work is finding a decent merge tool that automerges line by line unless it can't. conflicts are mostly caused by bad design or project planning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Crosscontaminant posted:I've heard good things about git flow Yes, let's make my already complicated vcs even more complicated by putting another layer of custom commands on top of it based on one guy's perception of how a workflow should be. Also the code for it hasn't been updated in two years even though there are 133 issues listed in the repo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:who the hell would trust a programmer that didn't smoke pot do that at home pls don't smell like weed at work
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Crosscontaminant posted:I've heard good things about git flow it's good op
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
triple sulk posted:Also the code for it hasn't been updated in two years even though there are 133 issues listed in the repo. as for complexity,  I prefer mercurial anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Crosscontaminant posted:as for complexity, at this point git is the standard mercurial has a vastly better UI but nobody cares. that war is over
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
just use sourcetree and don't be dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:just use src, src_new, src_useme and don't be dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
your revision control software is a piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
pram posted:your revision control software is a piece of poo poo if it was up to me this would be the title of yospos
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
it's about ethics in revision control
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:it's about ethics in revision control make this bannable
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
theadder posted:make this bannable nice job enforcing the gitocracy
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
It's about ethics in *burp* *faaaaaaartz*
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Bloody posted:It's about methane in *burp* *faaaaaaartz*
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
SVN is so intolerably bad at merging branches that the standard SVN workflow is to not branch. Instead the preferred strategy is to merge a bunch of half-baked and incomplete commits in with everyone else's half-baked and incomplete commits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:SVN is so intolerably bad at merging branches that the standard SVN workflow is to not branch. Instead the preferred strategy is to merge a bunch of half-baked and incomplete commits in with everyone else's half-baked and incomplete commits. yeah svn basically discourages branching or merging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:SVN is so intolerably bad at merging branches that the standard SVN workflow is to not branch. Instead the preferred strategy is to merge a bunch of half-baked and incomplete commits in with everyone else's half-baked and incomplete commits. people say this and I'm generally pretty baffled. I worked for years using svn and always used a feature branch that got merged back to trunk when it was done. SVN merging is not any harder than git if you have a decent diff tool that will automerge files for you. What you have left is the same conflicts that git would have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 02:16
|
|