7 ms·

wait there is another way?

by cstrat 5y ago

northwest65 5y ago
I've used GitExtensions from the start of my Git usage. I've never had to blow any of my repos away at any point. I also use things like Rebase without thinking about it, something which from what I've read on here is considered a slightly unusual/difficult task. Using GitExtensions means I can use Git as easily as any other tool, I never give it a second thought. I see the command line commands being executed, but never think about them. The flipside is I'd be knackered if I had to use the command line only.
- francislavoie 5y ago
  I used GitExtension for years, but then I switched to Linux some years ago, so I had to find an alternative. I used SourceTree for a while, but I hated the UX. I tried GitKraken when it first came out, but it had a lot of issues that didn't make it appropriate for my workflow. After a couple more years, GitKraken had improved enough that I was able to switch to it. I've been using it for maybe 4 or 5 years now.
  - carlhjerpe 5y ago
    GitKraken is amazing, I'm a happy customer through work. makes me happy when electron apps aren't crap.
  - redler 5y ago
    “Tower” is quite good. Highly recommended.
    - easygenes 5y ago
      MacOS and Windows only
  - happymellon 5y ago
    The pricing of GitKraken is a little frustrating. 5 pounds a month is quite a hefty price just to be able to use a private repo. Especially since it has not materially changed for my usage, so I would have been much happier giving them the £50 for a single licence. This is once of those scenarios where subscription for an enterprise might be a thing, but makes no sense for me. The JetBrains model would make sense and I could justify that.
    - francislavoie 5y ago
      $5/m is honestly peanuts. The amount of value I get from it is way, way more than that. I pay it yearly, like I do for PHPStorm.
      - happymellon 5y ago
        But if you get no value from PHPStorm you can stop paying for it and you do not lose access unlike a subscription. You just don't get new features. My issue is that I do not get £5 worth of value each month from GitKraken. I get value every couple of months, and it is to explain to other people what they are doing wrong rather than direct value for me.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Then stop paying for it.
        happymellon 5y ago
        Stop paying for what? I don't pay for GitKraken because I can't justify subscribing to software that doesn't materially change. The risk is that they have to keep "doing stuff" to justify a subscription and we will end up with a new email client.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Hahahahahahaha
chaorace 5y ago
git stash git reset --hard master git pull git stash pop
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Uh oh, you've now merged remote master into your local master which was two commits ahead and 3 behind! My git config has fast-forward only for pulls and I habitually use --ff-only for any pull :)
  - francislavoie 5y ago
    Yeah. "git pull" is so bad. I wish it didn't exist. Every single time a coworker has gotten into a stuck state is because they used "git pull" which made a merge commit when there shouldn't have been one. It's mostly stopped happening since I yelled at everyone to _please_ configure their machine with ff-only.
  - jcrites 5y ago
    The command you want is "git pull --rebase". There are configuration settings to make "git pull" rebase by default, and I'd recommend always turning that on that default (which may be by why the person above omitted it from his pull command). I actually thought "git pull" did "git pull --rebase" by default (this may be what you get from running `git --configure` without modifications?), but maybe I've just been configuring it that way. You can achieve this in your global Git configuration by setting "pull.rebase" to "true". I don't think it's sane behavior for "git pull" to do anything else besides rebase the local change onto the upstream branch, so I'm surprised it's not the command's default behavior. Has the project not changed the CLI for compatibility reasons or something? When do you ever want a "git pull" that's not a rebase? That generates a merge commit saying "Merge master into origin/master" (or something similar) which is stupid. If you really want to use actual branches for some reason, that's fine, but "merge master into master" commits are an anti-pattern that if I ever see in a Git repository I'm working on or responsible for, results in me having a conversation with the author about how to use Git correctly.
    - 5y ago
vetrom 5y ago
Invest in (or build?) an enterprise content management system for people that don't, for whatever reason, think of SCM in terms of commits, branches, and graphs. If you can make one that thinks in terms of git on the backend, great. If you want to go a bit further, you could expose the underlying operations to the user. You will need to get them to reason around and interact with the minimal requirements inherent to a versioning system, namely explicit versioning and an explicit commit process, along with explicit merging and conflict resolution. There are GUI clients that help with some of this, but you're not going to get away from some concept of dealing with branches and merges in any SCM. You hear about it less often, but you'd have the same troubles dealing with a chewed up repository in Perforce, ClearCase, or the like. (edit: even Subversion!)

wait there is another way?

by cstrat 5y ago

wait there is another way?

I've used GitExtensions from the start of my Git usage. I've never had to blow any of my repos away at any point. I also use things like Rebase without thinking about it, something which from what I've read on here is considered a slightly unusual/difficult task. Using GitExtensions means I can use Git as easily as any other tool, I never give it a second thought. I see the command line commands being executed, but never think about them. The flipside is I'd be knackered if I had to use the command line only.

francislavoie 5y ago
I used GitExtension for years, but then I switched to Linux some years ago, so I had to find an alternative. I used SourceTree for a while, but I hated the UX. I tried GitKraken when it first came out, but it had a lot of issues that didn't make it appropriate for my workflow. After a couple more years, GitKraken had improved enough that I was able to switch to it. I've been using it for maybe 4 or 5 years now.
- carlhjerpe 5y ago
  GitKraken is amazing, I'm a happy customer through work. makes me happy when electron apps aren't crap.
- redler 5y ago
  “Tower” is quite good. Highly recommended.
  - easygenes 5y ago
    MacOS and Windows only
- happymellon 5y ago
  The pricing of GitKraken is a little frustrating. 5 pounds a month is quite a hefty price just to be able to use a private repo. Especially since it has not materially changed for my usage, so I would have been much happier giving them the £50 for a single licence. This is once of those scenarios where subscription for an enterprise might be a thing, but makes no sense for me. The JetBrains model would make sense and I could justify that.
  - francislavoie 5y ago
    $5/m is honestly peanuts. The amount of value I get from it is way, way more than that. I pay it yearly, like I do for PHPStorm.
    - happymellon 5y ago
      But if you get no value from PHPStorm you can stop paying for it and you do not lose access unlike a subscription. You just don't get new features. My issue is that I do not get £5 worth of value each month from GitKraken. I get value every couple of months, and it is to explain to other people what they are doing wrong rather than direct value for me.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        Then stop paying for it.
        happymellon 5y ago
        Stop paying for what? I don't pay for GitKraken because I can't justify subscribing to software that doesn't materially change. The risk is that they have to keep "doing stuff" to justify a subscription and we will end up with a new email client.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Hahahahahahaha

chaorace 5y ago

git stash git reset --hard master git pull git stash pop

DangitBobby 5y ago
Uh oh, you've now merged remote master into your local master which was two commits ahead and 3 behind! My git config has fast-forward only for pulls and I habitually use --ff-only for any pull :)
- francislavoie 5y ago
  Yeah. "git pull" is so bad. I wish it didn't exist. Every single time a coworker has gotten into a stuck state is because they used "git pull" which made a merge commit when there shouldn't have been one. It's mostly stopped happening since I yelled at everyone to _please_ configure their machine with ff-only.
- jcrites 5y ago
  The command you want is "git pull --rebase". There are configuration settings to make "git pull" rebase by default, and I'd recommend always turning that on that default (which may be by why the person above omitted it from his pull command). I actually thought "git pull" did "git pull --rebase" by default (this may be what you get from running `git --configure` without modifications?), but maybe I've just been configuring it that way. You can achieve this in your global Git configuration by setting "pull.rebase" to "true". I don't think it's sane behavior for "git pull" to do anything else besides rebase the local change onto the upstream branch, so I'm surprised it's not the command's default behavior. Has the project not changed the CLI for compatibility reasons or something? When do you ever want a "git pull" that's not a rebase? That generates a merge commit saying "Merge master into origin/master" (or something similar) which is stupid. If you really want to use actual branches for some reason, that's fine, but "merge master into master" commits are an anti-pattern that if I ever see in a Git repository I'm working on or responsible for, results in me having a conversation with the author about how to use Git correctly.
  - 5y ago

vetrom 5y ago

Invest in (or build?) an enterprise content management system for people that don't, for whatever reason, think of SCM in terms of commits, branches, and graphs. If you can make one that thinks in terms of git on the backend, great. If you want to go a bit further, you could expose the underlying operations to the user. You will need to get them to reason around and interact with the minimal requirements inherent to a versioning system, namely explicit versioning and an explicit commit process, along with explicit merging and conflict resolution. There are GUI clients that help with some of this, but you're not going to get away from some concept of dealing with branches and merges in any SCM. You hear about it less often, but you'd have the same troubles dealing with a chewed up repository in Perforce, ClearCase, or the like. (edit: even Subversion!)