You already stopped Steven in a prior commit.
Also, if this is an organization setting, I’m extremely disappointed in your PR review process. If someone is committing vendor code to the repo someone else should reject the pull.
What if I told you a lot of companies don’t have solid review requirement processes? Some barely use version control at all
Sure, I understand… but if you’re at one of those companies you should introduce it.
Yeah… Usually if you join a company with bad practices it’s because the people who already work there don’t want to do things properly. They tend to not react well to the new guy telling them what they’re doing wrong.
Only really feasible if you’re the boss, or you have an unreasonable amount of patience.
Eh, if everyone knows what they’re doing, it can be much better to not have it and rather do more pairing.
But yes, obviously Steven does not know what they’re doing.
Better to not have version control!? Dear god I hope I never work on anything with you.
Pretty sure they meant to not have review. Dropping peer review in favor of pair programming is a trendy idea these days. Heh, you might call it “pairs over peers”. I don’t agree with it, though. Pair programming is great, but two people, heads together, can easily get on a wavelength and miss the same things. It’s always valuable to have people who have never seen the new changes take a look. Also, peer review helps keep the whole team up to date on their knowledge of the code base, a seriously underrated benefit. But I will concede that trading peer review for pair programming is less wrong than giving up version control. Still wrong, but a lot less wrong.
Well, to share my perspective – sorry, I mean, to explain to you why you’re wrong and differing opinions are unacceptable:
I find that pairing works best for small teams, where everyone is in the loop what everyone else is working on, and which don’t have a bottleneck in terms of a minority having much more skill or knowledge in the project.
In particular, pairing is far more efficient at exchanging information. Not only is it a matter of actively talking to one another just being quicker at bringing information across, there is also a ton of information about code, which will not make it into the actual code.
While coding, you’ve tried two or three approaches, you couldn’t write it as you expected or whatever. The final snippet of code looks as if you wrote it, starting in the top-left and finishing bottom-right, with maybe one or two comments explaining a particularly weird workaround, but I’d wager more than 90% of the creation process is lost.
This means that if someone needs to touch your code, they will know practically none of how it came to be and they will be scared of changing more about it than at all necessary. As a result, all code that gets checked in, needs to be as perfect as possible, right from the start.
Sharing all the information from the creation process by pairing, that empowers a team to write half-baked code. Because enough people know how to finish baking it, or how to restructure it, if a larger problem arises.
Pairing is fickle, though. A bad management decision can easily torpedo it. I’m currently in a project, where we practically cannot pair, because it’s 4 juniors that are new to the project vs. 2 seniors that built up the project.
Not only would we need to pair in groups of three to make that work at all, it also means we need to use the time of the seniors as efficiently as possible and rather waste the time of the juniors, which is where a review process excels at.
Ah, no, I meant a review process. Version control is always a good idea.
That’s a big fucking “if”
Fucking stop Steven, that absolute shitter
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s not enough to delete the files in the commit, unless you’re ok with Git tracking the large amount of data that was previously committed. Your git clones will be long, my friend
You’d have to rewrite the history as to never having committed those files in the first place, yes.
And then politely ask all your coworkers to reset their working environments to the “new” head of the branch, same as the old head but not quite.
Chaos ensues. Sirens in the distance wailing.
Rewrite history? Difficult.
Start a new project and nuke the old one? Finger guns.
History is written by the victors. The rest of us have to nuke the project and start over.
If this was committed to a branch would doing a squash merge into another branch and then nuking the old one not do the trick?
Yes, that would do the trick
git clone --depth=1?No, don’t do that. That modifies the commit hashes, so tags no longer work.
git clone --filter=blob:noneis where it’s at.Thanks, didn’t know about that one.
I don’t understand how we’re all using git and it’s not just some backend utility that we all use a sane wrapper for instead.
Everytime you want to do anything with git it’s a weird series or arcane nonsense commands and then someone cuts in saying “oh yeah but that will destroy x y and z, you have to use this other arcane nonsense command that also sounds nothing like you’re trying to do” and you sit there having no idea why either of them even kind of accomplish what you want.
See this is the kind of shit that bothers me with Git and we just sort of accept it, because it’s THE STANDARD. And then we crank attach these shitty LFS solutions on the side because it don’t really work.
Give me Perforce, please.
What was perforce’s solution to this? If you delete a file in a new revision, it still kept the old data around, right? Otherwise there’d be no way to rollback.
Yes but Perforce is a (broadly) centralised system, so you don’t end up with the whole history on your local computer. Yes, that then has some challenges (local branches etc, which Perforce mitigates with Streams) and local development (which is mitigated in other ways).
For how most teams work, I’d choose Perforce any day. Git is specialised towards very large, often part time, hyper-distributed development (AKA Linux development), but the reality is that most teams do work with a main branch in a central location.
Yes I’m aware, of course. But then you take on another set of trade-offs. It’s not like shallow cloning SOLVES your problem.
I can’t see past the word wrap implementation in that UI. Mo dules indeed.
Wow, that’s 300k lines of text that anyone, who clones the repo, has to download.
Do I really have to escape my dots in a
.gitignore?I really don’t think so. The documentation says nothing of the like.
Maybe someone thought it’s a regex pattern, where escaping dots would make sense. But yeah, it mostly works like glob patterns instead.
Not usually
Why do I get the feeling this is Steven’s commit?
sid-codesteven is dumb-code
Creating a mucj larger dl. What a dick.
How long did it take Steve to git push every time?
