4 ms·

Back when I started at my current job... 15 years ago... We had no central git server. No PR workflow. We just git pull-ed from each others machines. It worked

by donatj 1y ago

Back when I started at my current job... 15 years ago... We had no central git server. No PR workflow. We just git pull-ed from each others machines. It worked better than you would expect. We then went to using a central bare repo on a shared server, to hosted gitlab(? I think - it was Ruby and broke constantly) eventually landing on GitHub

globular-toast 1y ago
This is classic git usage. A "pull request" was literally just asking someone to pull from your branch. GitHub co-opted the term for their own thing. The thing that people really don't seem to get these days is how your master branch is a different branch from someone else's master branch. So pulling from one master to another was a normal thing. When you clone you get a copy of all the branches. You can commit to your master branch all you want, it's yours to use however you want to.
- kragen 1y ago
  On GitHub, too, a "pull request" is literally just asking someone to pull from your branch.
  - hshdhdhehd 1y ago
    Isn't it asking someone to pull your branch (if forked) then merge it into to master
    - kragen 1y ago
      Git pull is git fetch plus git merge.
      - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
        I've run into so many people that think "git pull" doesn't do anything unless you run "git fetch" first. In my 10+ year career, I'm not sure I've ever run "git fetch" manually. I've never had a time where I wanted to fetch upstream changes, but not merge (or rebase) them into my branch.
        kragen 1y ago
        Yeah, I don't remember having done that either. But I've often had changes where the merge failed because of un-checked-in changes, and then it was convenient to be able to run `git merge` after checking in the changes rather than `git pull` because it didn't need to talk to the remote.
  - globular-toast 1y ago
    Except your branch has to be on GitHub. The point is pulling used to happen across different repos a lot more.

by donatj 1y ago

globular-toast 1y ago

This is classic git usage. A "pull request" was literally just asking someone to pull from your branch. GitHub co-opted the term for their own thing. The thing that people really don't seem to get these days is how your master branch is a different branch from someone else's master branch. So pulling from one master to another was a normal thing. When you clone you get a copy of all the branches. You can commit to your master branch all you want, it's yours to use however you want to.

kragen 1y ago
On GitHub, too, a "pull request" is literally just asking someone to pull from your branch.
- hshdhdhehd 1y ago
  Isn't it asking someone to pull your branch (if forked) then merge it into to master
  - kragen 1y ago
    Git pull is git fetch plus git merge.
    - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
      I've run into so many people that think "git pull" doesn't do anything unless you run "git fetch" first. In my 10+ year career, I'm not sure I've ever run "git fetch" manually. I've never had a time where I wanted to fetch upstream changes, but not merge (or rebase) them into my branch.
      - kragen 1y ago
        Yeah, I don't remember having done that either. But I've often had changes where the merge failed because of un-checked-in changes, and then it was convenient to be able to run `git merge` after checking in the changes rather than `git pull` because it didn't need to talk to the remote.
- globular-toast 1y ago
  Except your branch has to be on GitHub. The point is pulling used to happen across different repos a lot more.