|
Thanks. I ended up getting the whole site hosted (shoutout to Lithium's cheapass hosting) so it's not an issue anymore.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Thanks. I ended up getting the whole site hosted (shoutout to Lithium's cheapass hosting) so it's not an issue anymore. How cheap? From what I can see on their page, the cheapest plan starts at $18/month. You can have an Amazon or DigitalOcean VM for (approx) $5/month, with Amazon even throwing in the first year for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
I think you must be looking at their reseller or VPS hosting, their standard shared hosting is $2/mo for the cheapest, and that's plenty for me right now. If you get it for three years you get it down to $1.50 but I'm definitely not doing that kind of commitment so quickly. They're somewhat more expensive (I think like $3/mo) if you aren't a goon, but they have special goon pricing if you verify you're a goon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
I did not know goon ran shared hosting was still a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
There’s two pretty active threads in SA-Mart actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a good, low-to-moderate cost github pull request reminder extension for slack? I'm trying to get something up and running for work, and while Pull Reminders is handy I'm not really down to pay $50/mo for a convenience extension. The github slack integration is handy but doesn't have the ability to do recurring personal reminders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
/remind me to check github later today?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Just write a small script that checks github api for pull requests, stick it on a cron job or jenkins scheduled run and then have it use slack api to notify users. Both APIs are easy to use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:Just write a small script that checks github api for pull requests, stick it on a cron job or jenkins scheduled run and then have it use slack api to notify users. Both APIs are easy to use.  but that'll probably end up being the solution
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:
If you have jenkins at your disposal, you can skip the slack API part with a plugin and just write the github API PR check part. Bonus: your script can be easily modified when your company randomly decides to go to gitlab over github or discord over slack!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
What git GUI for Linux has the closest capability to Git Extension's line-by-line reset ability? I can go through changed files in staging and just select sections to reset. It's a convenient way to knock out debug log messages and junk that I don't want to go upstairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:discord over slack! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
You know it's gonna happen one day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:You know it's gonna happen one day. I've had people I hang out in discord with suggest it. "Why wouldn't you switch, Discord is basically just slack with voice chat!" what's enterprise support precious
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
My research group uses Discord because we don't exactly sell software and it seems silly to pay per seat for things like "see the entire server message history". I'm sure if you're enterprise and can afford it there are a lot of good reasons to use Slack, but if you just need a place to ask quick questions and chat about progress that's more immediate than email Discord fills the niche more cheaply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
guys electron is a cool and good client platform for your company's intellectual property
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Linear Zoetrope posted:My research group uses Discord because we don't exactly sell software and it seems silly to pay per seat for things like "see the entire server message history". I'm sure if you're enterprise and can afford it there are a lot of good reasons to use Slack, but if you just need a place to ask quick questions and chat about progress that's more immediate than email Discord fills the niche more cheaply. this is why the free version of slack exists
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Discord gives you all history for free, slack does not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
I have two files in a repository that I want to remove and replace, with no history for the originals, but keeping the history for the rest of the repository. Is that even possible? Or should I just squash the history for the whole thing before adding the new files?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
You can use filter-branch to do this. It's a well known but not simple to figure out process. Just Google for deleting a file from git history. Probably would use the filter to remove the files and then in a follow-up commit add the new files.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
GitHub now provides free unlimited private repositories, joining Bitbucket and GitLab. I used to have everything on GitHub but migrated most of my stuff to Bitbucket because I needed private repositories but was too cheap to pay for it. I never really "liked" Bitbucket because it feels like it's glacially slow at everything, so now that I can make unlimited private repositories I wanna move back to Github. So what's the best way to do this? I didn't use any of the features on Bitbucket's website like issues or wiki etc so I don't care about those. Ideally what I'd like to do is to copy all repositories to GitHub and treat that as canon, pushing and pulling only to GitHub. Since Bitbucket exists and is free, I'd like to have my GitHub repositories mirrored to Bitbucket, but I want that to happen automatically (ie I push to GitHub and it automatically mirrors to Bitbucket). This is in case Microsoft ever decides to randomly shut off my access to GitHub, as unlikely as it is, at least then I'd have another copy stored remotely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:GitHub now provides free unlimited private repositories, joining Bitbucket and GitLab. Pull all your projects locally and set two remotes: one for github and one for bitbucket. Push to both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Set up some CD service that mirrors github whenever you push to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:GitHub now provides free unlimited private repositories But their LFS pricing is still borderline scam if you actually need LFS, mostly because they'll hold it hostage until you pay them more if you hit either paltry storage or bandwidth limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:Pull all your projects locally and set two remotes: one for github and one for bitbucket. Push to both. That would work but it would be a a mess to maintain, especially on like an iPad where I don't really have the time/want to wait for it to push to both remotes. I just want to push to GitHub and then have it be mirrored to bitbucket (and maybe gitlab, can't have too many backups right?) automagically and done off my device. The Fool posted:Set up some CD service that mirrors github whenever you push to it. Is there an easy way to do that for free?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:That would work but it would be a a mess to maintain, especially on like an iPad where I don't really have the time/want to wait for it to push to both remotes. I just want to push to GitHub and then have it be mirrored to bitbucket (and maybe gitlab, can't have too many backups right?) automagically and done off my device. lol GitLab CI/CD
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:That would work but it would be a a mess to maintain, especially on like an iPad where I don't really have the time/want to wait for it to push to both remotes. I just want to push to GitHub and then have it be mirrored to bitbucket (and maybe gitlab, can't have too many backups right?) automagically and done off my device. If you're averse to multiple remotes and you expect GitHub to do the heavy lifting for you, I would read up on their web hook documentation to see if it's can help you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:That would work but it would be a a mess to maintain, especially on like an iPad where I don't really have the time/want to wait for it to push to both remotes. I just want to push to GitHub and then have it be mirrored to bitbucket (and maybe gitlab, can't have too many backups right?) automagically and done off my device. GitLab, Circle CI, and Azure Devops are the three I know off the top of my head that have free tier CI/CD
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Bitrise also has a free CI/CD tier, but it's geared towards mobile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
What's the best way to manage a repo where I only care about 3-5 files in a folder of hundreds? Do I just explicitly add those few files and ignore everything else, or is there a better way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
.gitignore file with something like: * !file-to-track !another-file-to-track
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Put the repo somewhere else and have the big dir symlink into it for the few files you care about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Hopefully a simple git question: I’ve managed to avoid interacting with git for better or worse up to now. A project I’m working on is planning to source control everything (which is fine), but this includes a tool that itself is already version controlled internally and is pretty proprietary. Aside from storing a general history of previous .xml files, what would be the best command(s) to use to upload the latest definitive file? In my case this is mostly for bookkeeping/compliance, and no one will be developing off the file. The plan would be to upload it to stash via git and then import it back into the tool by addressing the raw source file in the repo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
So there is a remote repo at https://github.com/SOMEWHERE/ORIGINAL_REPO.git It as a very small project in it where there were a few commits. None of that code is valid any more, and I have a repo that only exists on my machine that I named ORIGINAL_REPO and now I want my local repo to completely replace the remote one: all files gone, all their commits gone and replaced with mine. My guess is that I want to set the remote origin to their URL and then do git push origin master --force but I want to make sure that does what I want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:So there is a remote repo at https://github.com/SOMEWHERE/ORIGINAL_REPO.git ...kind of. All of the original commits will still be there, but if they're no longer referenced anywhere, they will be subject to eventual garbage collection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
New Yorp New Yorp posted:...kind of. All of the original commits will still be there, but if they're no longer referenced anywhere, they will be subject to eventual garbage collection. So how do I wholesale replace it? I want to avoid deleting it and re-making it if possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Force will do what you want just fine. Make sure to delete any branches, as well. If there are PRs, however, those commits will always be at thanks to some github magic that let's you fetch PRs as branches. The objects that will get gced are not fetchable if there is no reference, as far as I'm aware. If you really, really want it all gone on GitHub you have to delete and create it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
necrotic posted:Force will do what you want just fine. Make sure to delete any branches, as well. If there are PRs, however, those commits will always be at thanks to some github magic that let's you fetch PRs as branches. Thanks. That did the trick. The other repo had no branches, no PRs and two whole commits, so it was probably the best case for doing what I needed to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Anyone else work with per-environment git branches? In other words: develop gets pushed to dev environment testing to testing env staging to staging env master to prod env We just got this pipeline set up this week and everything is automated (in that when you push to a branch, the code gets built and deployed), but I'm wondering 2 things: 1. What is the best time to commit the new Git tags and updates to the CHANGELOG.md? 2. Can I prevent merging master back into develop altogether? The way we ran things this time around is to merge develop into testing, then git tag testing branch and push directly to that branch. But then we discovered a bug so we needed to push that hotfix directly to testing, but that also means that we're going to have to sync up master and develop once the new code hits master Is this model bad? We had a typical git flow process before this, but assumed long-lived branches would be better. Turns out, they're exactly the same as normal Git flow. teen phone cutie fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Apr 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Grump posted:Anyone else work with per-environment git branches? In other words: This is super wrong and bad. It's wrong and bad in centralized VC and it's double wrong and bad in Git. You should be building once and deploying that build progressively through your environments. That way, when something doesn't work, you can isolate it to the environment, not to the build. Test in QA, rebuild, deploy to production. It's broken. If you just rebuilt fresh from a branch, you have absolutely zero guarantee that what you tested is what's deployed. You have to check the environment, the configuration, and validate that it's not a bad build.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 00:19
|
|