4 ms·

Ahahahahahaha. You think that works! No. That fails with the following semi-helpful error message: remote: error: refusing to update checked out branch: r

by drostie 10y ago

Ahahahahahaha. You think that works! No. That fails with the following semi-helpful error message: remote: error: refusing to update checked out branch: refs/heads/master remote: error: By default, updating the current branch in a non-bare repository remote: error: is denied, because it will make the index and work tree inconsistent remote: error: with what you pushed, and will require 'git reset --hard' to match remote: error: the work tree to HEAD. remote: error: remote: error: You can set 'receive.denyCurrentBranch' configuration variable to remote: error: 'ignore' or 'warn' in the remote repository to allow pushing into remote: error: its current branch; however, this is not recommended unless you remote: error: arranged to update its work tree to match what you pushed in some remote: error: other way. remote: error: remote: error: To squelch this message and still keep the default behaviour, set remote: error: 'receive.denyCurrentBranch' configuration variable to 'refuse'. Actually all of these diagrams for Git need to look substantially more complicated because you first off need to introduce repositories which have a cylinder with a cloud over them (the cloud of course is the staging area) with a sort of recycle-reduce-reuse pattern of arrows `add`, `commit`, `checkout` between these three entities, with the caveat that `checkout` is only kinda-sorta what you're looking for with this. In fact there is a cylinder-to-cylinder `pull`-type operation called `fetch`, but `git fetch; git checkout` will not actually update any files, revealing the gaping hole in this simple picture, and you'll have to type `git status` to find out that you're directed to do a `git pull` anyway, which has to be diagrammed as an arrow pointing from the remote cylinder, bouncing off the local cylinder, and then pointing at the local folder. To get to talk about `push` you then need to introduce the SVN-style "bare repository" in the diagram, a folder-box with the cylinder now drawn large inside it, and explain that this folder exists only to contain the .git subfolder and act as an SVN-style repository. You can then draw `pull` arrows down from it and `push` arrows up to it. Then the workflow is more SVN-style: git branch git checkout git commit git push ssh testing-server cd git-repository git pull Now that almost works, except the `git branch; git checkout` flow is not the proper way to push changes in the working directory to the new branch. (The context of the conversation was stuff that was already being developed, presumably on the master branch.) That fails on the checkout with an error message like: error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by checkout: foo bar Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can switch branches. Aborting But, I mean, close enough. It's `git stash branch <newbranch>` and it generates an ugly error message but it does exactly what you want it to do, so you can ignore that error message and hack away. Now, you're missing the point if you think "God, drostie is really pedantically getting on my case for missing the remote-repository-update and the git stash here! Anyone will learn that workflow eventually!" The point was not any such thing, the point was clean diagrams when explaining the idea to a fellow developer -- in fact a diagram so clean that a nontechnical user asked about it and accidentally learned enough to get some new vocabulary about how a developer's life works, so that they could more effectively communicate what they want to the developer. It is my contention that the git diagram, as opposed to the git workflow, is sufficiently messy that a nontechnical eye will lose curiosity and most certainly will not get the idea of "make a branch, push the branch to the shared repository, then update the testing repository, then switch to that branch, then discard that branch if things don't work out." That strikes me as too in-depth for nontechnical casual users to express.

emn13 10y ago
I think people have a way too high tolerance for this kind of crap. We're also kidding ourselves if we think we're smart enough to work with this kind of complexity at no cost. Our job is often to think up new things. It's really hard to come up with new abstractions when your thinking is muddled by all kinds of incidental complexity.
- luckydude 10y ago
  This is buried but in case anyone reads it, the real reason to open source BK is to show the world that SCM doesn't have to be as error prone or as complicated as Git. You need to understand how Git works to use it properly; BK is more like a car, you just get in and drive.
  - nullnix 10y ago
    That metaphor... needs work. Cars need a considerable amount of training to learn to use safely, let alone correctly. I can hack C enough that I dream in it routinely, and due to the resulting brain damage found git intuitive from the start, but there is no way I'll ever learn to drive: it's just too hard.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      > Cars need a considerable amount of training to learn to use safely, let alone correctly. Significantly less training than is required to know the internals of how it operates though.
- wyoung2 10y ago
  > I think people have a way too high tolerance for this kind of crap. I agree. The core problem with Git is that it was designed to serve the needs of the Linux kernel developers. Very, very, very few projects have SCM problems of similar complexity, so why do so many people try to use a tool that solves problems they don't have? Much of that internal complexity extends up into the Git interface, so you're paying for complexity you don't need. Others in this thread have praised hg and bzr for their relative simplicity for a DVCS. I'd also like to point out Fossil. In the normal course of daily use, Fossil as simple to use as svn. About the only time where Fossil is more complex is the clone step before checking out a version from a remote repository. Other than that, the daily use of Fossil is very nearly command-for-command the same as with svn. Sometimes the subcommands are different (e.g. fossil finfo instead of svn status for per-file info in the current checkout) but muscle memory works that out fairly quickly. Most of that simplicity comes down to Fossil's autosync feature, which means that local checkout changes are automatically propagated back to the server you cloned from, so Fossil doesn't normally have separate checkin and push steps, as with Git. But if you want a 2-step commit, Fossil will let you turn off autosync. (But you shouldn't. Local-only checkins with rare pushes is a manifestation of "the guy in the room" problem which we were warned against back in 1971 by Gerald Weinberg. Thus, Fossil fosters teamwork with better defaults than Git.) Branching is a lot saner in Fossil than svn: 1. Fossil branches automatically include all files in a particular revision, whereas svn's branches are built on top of the per-file copy operation, so you could have a branch containing only one file. This is one of those kinds of flexibility that ends up causing problems, because you can end up with branches that don't parallel one another, making patches and merges difficult. Fossil strongly encourages you to keep related branches parallel. Automatic merges tend to succeed more often in Fossil than svn as a result. 2. Fossil has a built-in web UI with a graphical timeline, so you can see the structure of your branches. You have to install a separate GUI tool to get that with most other VCSes. The fact that you can always get a graphical view of things means that if you ever get confused about the state of a Fossil checkout tree, you'll likely spend less time confused, because you're likely also using its fully-integrated web UI. 3. Whereas svn makes you branch before you start work on a change, Fossil lets you put that off until you're ready to commit. It's at that point that you're ready to decide, "Does this change make sense on the current branch, or do I need a new one?" Fossil's handling of branches is also a lot simpler than Git's, primarily because the local Fossil repository clone is separate from the checkout tree. Thus, it is easy to have multiple Fossil checkouts from a given local repo clone, whereas the standard Git workflow is to switch among branches in a single tree, making branch switches inexpensive. (And yes, I'm aware that there is a way to have one local Git checkout refer to another so you can have multiple branches checked out locally without two complete repo clones. The point is that Git has yet again added unnecessary complexity to something that should be simple.)

by drostie 10y ago

emn13 10y ago

I think people have a way too high tolerance for this kind of crap. We're also kidding ourselves if we think we're smart enough to work with this kind of complexity at no cost. Our job is often to think up new things. It's really hard to come up with new abstractions when your thinking is muddled by all kinds of incidental complexity.

luckydude 10y ago
This is buried but in case anyone reads it, the real reason to open source BK is to show the world that SCM doesn't have to be as error prone or as complicated as Git. You need to understand how Git works to use it properly; BK is more like a car, you just get in and drive.
- nullnix 10y ago
  That metaphor... needs work. Cars need a considerable amount of training to learn to use safely, let alone correctly. I can hack C enough that I dream in it routinely, and due to the resulting brain damage found git intuitive from the start, but there is no way I'll ever learn to drive: it's just too hard.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > Cars need a considerable amount of training to learn to use safely, let alone correctly. Significantly less training than is required to know the internals of how it operates though.
wyoung2 10y ago
> I think people have a way too high tolerance for this kind of crap. I agree. The core problem with Git is that it was designed to serve the needs of the Linux kernel developers. Very, very, very few projects have SCM problems of similar complexity, so why do so many people try to use a tool that solves problems they don't have? Much of that internal complexity extends up into the Git interface, so you're paying for complexity you don't need. Others in this thread have praised hg and bzr for their relative simplicity for a DVCS. I'd also like to point out Fossil. In the normal course of daily use, Fossil as simple to use as svn. About the only time where Fossil is more complex is the clone step before checking out a version from a remote repository. Other than that, the daily use of Fossil is very nearly command-for-command the same as with svn. Sometimes the subcommands are different (e.g. fossil finfo instead of svn status for per-file info in the current checkout) but muscle memory works that out fairly quickly. Most of that simplicity comes down to Fossil's autosync feature, which means that local checkout changes are automatically propagated back to the server you cloned from, so Fossil doesn't normally have separate checkin and push steps, as with Git. But if you want a 2-step commit, Fossil will let you turn off autosync. (But you shouldn't. Local-only checkins with rare pushes is a manifestation of "the guy in the room" problem which we were warned against back in 1971 by Gerald Weinberg. Thus, Fossil fosters teamwork with better defaults than Git.) Branching is a lot saner in Fossil than svn: 1. Fossil branches automatically include all files in a particular revision, whereas svn's branches are built on top of the per-file copy operation, so you could have a branch containing only one file. This is one of those kinds of flexibility that ends up causing problems, because you can end up with branches that don't parallel one another, making patches and merges difficult. Fossil strongly encourages you to keep related branches parallel. Automatic merges tend to succeed more often in Fossil than svn as a result. 2. Fossil has a built-in web UI with a graphical timeline, so you can see the structure of your branches. You have to install a separate GUI tool to get that with most other VCSes. The fact that you can always get a graphical view of things means that if you ever get confused about the state of a Fossil checkout tree, you'll likely spend less time confused, because you're likely also using its fully-integrated web UI. 3. Whereas svn makes you branch before you start work on a change, Fossil lets you put that off until you're ready to commit. It's at that point that you're ready to decide, "Does this change make sense on the current branch, or do I need a new one?" Fossil's handling of branches is also a lot simpler than Git's, primarily because the local Fossil repository clone is separate from the checkout tree. Thus, it is easy to have multiple Fossil checkouts from a given local repo clone, whereas the standard Git workflow is to switch among branches in a single tree, making branch switches inexpensive. (And yes, I'm aware that there is a way to have one local Git checkout refer to another so you can have multiple branches checked out locally without two complete repo clones. The point is that Git has yet again added unnecessary complexity to something that should be simple.)