[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] small patch
Jörg F. Wittenberger
Re: [Chicken-hackers] small patch
Tue, 26 May 2015 16:40:03 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux armv7l; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0
Am 23.05.2015 um 16:45 schrieb Peter Bex:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 02:25:56PM +0200, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote:
>> Attached a small patch against origin/master. It's just to silence a
>> valgrind warning.
> The patch looks good to me, except for the headers. See below.
I agree with you that git is needlessly complicated. And stupidly
retarded. Since the early '90 I've been using all sorts of version
control. Most are at least superficially similar to each other. Git
not. I could accept this IF it had a good reason. But it seems
different for being different, not for being better.
Personally I somewhat settled on fossil for small groups. Especially
because it includes small little ticket tracking right with the repository.
But these days the hipsters are so many. Larger groups just have to
have git for the sake of social peace.
>> More important: I'd like to eventually learn how to get this right using
> It looks like you forgot to configure your username and e-mail address
> in git. It says "From: Benutzer <address@hidden>". You can
> configure this through:
> git config --global user.name "blabla"
> git config --global user.email address@hidden
Thanks a lot! These are the kind of things I expected to miss.
Helpful and smart as git is, it does somehow not really obey the "name"
given in .gitconfig. I'll have to figure out. This time I manually
edited the patch...
> Please make a new commit using the correct author and send it, so that
> we get the attribution right.
>> (I actually checked this into git. But in the origin/master branch -
>> fully aware that this would not be the right thing to do if I was to
>> push my changes. However I expect myself at least to accidentally check
>> things into the wrong branch and need to learn how to fix the mess.)
> You can do two things: either make an ad-hoc branch and commit it to that,
> then delete it. Or you can simply commit to "master", use git format-patch
> to create the patch, and then run "git reset --hard origin/master" to go
> back to the original version you got from upstream (that's what I always do).
I tried now to to have my own branch. Funny: I expected the branch name
to appear somehow in the patch(headers), but that's not the case.
Since that's not the case, I'll have to figure out how to create patches
between arbitrary commits. Why? fossil can export/import whole
repositories to/from git. Maybe it turns out to be simpler to actually
work in fossil and just format-patch from git eventually.
> You should not commit to origin/master, I'm not even sure if git allows you
> to do that (but, since it's git it probably allows you to shoot yourself in
> the foot that way).
SURE it does!
> The origin/master branch is for keeping track of the
> state of the "master" branch at the remote "origin" (which is what you
> initially cloned it from). This allows you to always go back to the state
> we're on, like with the reset command I mentioned. You can also use it
> to rebase your own changes so that they are moved at the end of that branch.
> Git is a stupidly retarded tool, and needlessly complicated. All the
> hipsters seem to enjoy showing off how they mastered its complexity, but
> don't let that drag you down. I found
> to be very helpful in making sense of the mess that is git.
Thanks for yet another text attempting to make sense of git (which has
won - hand down - the competition for the best match between name and
Though it appears to me to be more the details, which I did not yet
understand. Like "which tag is supposed to track which purpose" (e.g.,
master, origin), how do I commit into a fresh branch, why the hell do I
need the rebase concept at all?
Thanks for your help and comments.
Description: Text Data
Description: OpenPGP digital signature