|
no, I don't count the server-side Facebook stuff, which I didn't do that much with anyway. I mean about a billion people downloading and installing software I managed the development of onto their computers/phones. Binaries that needed long-term maintenance and "make exactly the thing from before except with this narrow change". e: probably (certainly) some humans have installed, f.e., both Firefox and the Facebook iOS app, so it's likely less than a billion individuals. nonetheless. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jan 15, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
bobbilljim posted:store your artifacts for the love of god but idgaf how u do it drawer of unlabeled zip disks
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Deacon of Delicious posted:drawer of unlabeled zip disks big rear end janitor keyring of thumbdrives
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
haha, oh wow, i didn't realize had internally edited microsoft compiler builds to microsoft OS builds. no wonder it was like it was i presenting the secrets of chem trails
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
but subjunctive, man, you're still a prick
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
rotor posted:who wants to play the "guess what rotor will say" game? i'll take "dont loving use git you moron" for 200
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
"I'll force my branch into your repo if you commit to using this version control system."
faxlore fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
i use gitcoin, i can only check in once i've mined the next commit blockchain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:whats the deal with people not knowing git? one day you'll find out people write software for things other than websites
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
tef posted:one day you'll find out people write software for things other than websites yes, the other three classes of software are: -web apps -web frameworks -burp and fart piano
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
git talk - i follow this and ive got no idea if i could do better or not
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:do these people download zip files from github ??
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:i don't really care to evangelize git but this is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, so it's the one i use i don't really care to evangelize svn but the thing that makes the most sense to me, so it's how i talk about it: the commands were written by someone who thought about the user interface beyond a series of operations on a directed acyclic graph of hashes, trees, and blobs. what you are missing is this: svn was a nicer tool to use a lot of the time, over git. i've actually found mercurial substantially less annoying to use in places. having branches in seperate directories was lovely, having commands that were reasy to internalise. sub tree checkouts. svn git on the other hand is an incredible simple model "a tree of snapshots" with incredibly opaque operators. git has no polish, or any ux. git is very popular with the "broken tools you fix yourself" crowd, the sorta people who use zsh with extravagant dotfiles, the sorta people who publish a gem which wraps git to make it work for them. the rest of the world uses git via the google + stackoverflow interface. git gets one thing right: my local copy is a fork, but "a bunch of people working on a shared codebase" use ends up being a little bit more convoluted. git's still nice but the whole "svn sucks, git rocks" thing is just a bunch of people parroting off the platitudes on slashdot, reddit, and hacker news, by people who don't undertstand git, or svn. yes, git has a better model but frankly, svn had way better tooling and don't get me started on github. uuuurrrggghhh
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:git talk - i follow this and ive got no idea if i could do better or not we spent a bunch of time optimising merging in long running branches only to discover that you still have merge pain with long running branches
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:but subjunctive, man, you're still a prick I have my moments (I'm actually a pretty nice guy, I think you would find, but I'm not always on my best manners in the pos) Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
I've seen people using Dropbox for source control in academia
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've seen people using Dropbox for source control in academia yeah you just export project to zip, name it with a date prefix and then dropbox it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
ive never tried svn/mercurial (i dont even know if they are different things). for my stuff, writing in latex, i use git, as in sourcetree client and private repository on bitbucket. semester that finished yesterday had a subject where i was forced to use dropbox for version control of fairly broad project.  *plays gta, goes to shoot dropboxers* e: Valeyard posted:yeah you just export project to zip, name it with a date prefix and then dropbox it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
rotor posted:I sat through an hour long brown bag of some insufferable nerd talking about how to craft your commits so the version history ~tells the story of your software~
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:ive never tried svn/mercurial (i dont even know if they are different things). for my stuff, writing in latex, i use git, as in sourcetree client and private repository on bitbucket. my understanding is that mercurial is like git, except better
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:whats the deal with people spending a bunch of time with git rebasing stuff to get nice looking commits? what;s the point, it seems like a lot of effort to obfuscate stuff in a clever way these people are assholes
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Rebasing is okay when your feature branch can't be merged properly as-is. Asking the person to rebase is asking them to solve the conflicts (they know their code changes in the first place) so that the person doing the merging can just do it without having to figure out what should or should not be dropped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
tef posted:i don't really care to evangelize svn but the thing that makes the most sense to me, so it's how i talk about it: the commands were written by someone who thought about the user interface beyond a series of operations on a directed acyclic graph of hashes, trees, and blobs. lol you're not even talking about git you're just ranting about ruby again
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
prefect posted:my understanding is that mercurial is like git, except better mercurial owns
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
mercurial has its warts, if it didn't everyone would be using it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
everyone is using git. so what is preventing them from using mercurial?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:everyone is using git. so what is preventing them from using mercurial? enlightenment
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
you know what i miss? clearcase's version-tree browser. that was the best for figuring out what came from where and how
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:everyone is using git. so what is preventing them from using mercurial? they're using github, and github doesn't support mercurial
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I've seen people using Dropbox for source control in academia that's better than what i saw in college, before dropbox existed
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
prefect posted:you know what i miss? clearcase's version-tree browser. that was the best for figuring out what came from where and how  Which you can then navigate and see diffs for each commits, and the 'glog' alias:  You can get that one in git as: code:I'm guessing you might have better poo poo in a GUI version of these things, but I'm a CLI man 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:that's better than what i saw in college, before dropbox existed
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:i bet it was same only on ftp server yeah basically. using an FTP server was even rare. losing a thumb drive was a big loving deal back then
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
I interview once at a game company that used source safe for all their version control, including of the Linux-hosted server code. CIFS mount and hope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
vss 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:The cherry on top for me is two people there had used git before, but NEVER DID ANY VERSIONING WITH IT AT ALL, and only one had actually done a merge. loving everyone flips their poo poo about actually doing version control in git. I cannot fathom this, even though I see it everywhere I look. Is "why does revert make new commit I thought it go back" why? stop using git
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
the only thing that's good about git is it makes inexperienced developers stand out really well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:the only thing that's good about git is it makes inexperienced developers stand out really well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
faxlore posted:"I'll force my branch into your repo if you commit to using this version control system." I'm almost there, pleeeeeeease don't stop
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 16:00
|
|