IRCloggy #git 2019-05-22

Provider of IRC logs since 2005.

WARNING: As Freenode became unjoinable and lost all warnings in topics, we cannot log channels on Freenode anymore.

	2019-05-22
	← mat001 left	00:00
	→ rustyshackleford joined	00:00
	→ fphilipe joined	00:00
	→ butterthebuddha joined	00:00
	← butterthebuddha left	00:00
rustyshackleford	I have a weird problem - do you see any good solutions?	00:02
	so we have these versioned files	00:02
	content_0.1.0.json, content_0.2.0.json, content_0.3.0.json	00:03
	→ ygivenx_ joined	00:03
rustyshackleford	but if a changes is made to 0.1.0, it should also be made in 0.2.0 and 0.3.0	00:03
	think this could be scripted?	00:04
	← xcm left	00:06
	→ xcm joined	00:06
	← ygivenx left	00:07
vishal	rustyshackleford: scripted how? as part of some git operation? You can write a script, something like sync_configs, and call it from a hook if needed	00:08
rustyshackleford	well a script that uses/calls git	00:08
vishal	but it really depends on how a 'cahnge' is defined, how the 2/3 versions differ from 1 and each other..	00:08
rustyshackleford	okay lets add another complicated detail	00:08
	there is a release branch for each	00:09
	so when we created 0.4.0, we will begin by copying content_0.3.0.json and naming it content_0.4.0.json	00:09
	further changes to content_0.1.0.json should be merged upstream	00:10
	but also, should be committed somehow to content_0.(x>1).0.json	00:10
vishal	sure you can commit to the 0.1 branch and try cherry-picking to the others..	00:10
	there may be merge conflicts, and you just resolve them	00:11
rustyshackleford	filename is different unfortunately. I can merge 0.1.0 into 0.2.0. content_0.1.0 will be identical on both branches	00:11
	but 0.2.0 is now out of date	00:11
vishal	ah hmm	00:11
	← ygivenx_ left	00:11
rustyshackleford	so i'm thinking a script that can generate a diff	00:11
	and somehow add that to the next files	00:12
	...or is time to reconsider this complicated as fuck approach	00:12
vishal	I don't think there would be a git native way to do all of it in one fell swoop (commit)	00:12
rustyshackleford	yeah I don't expect that. But a way to script it would greatly help	00:12
vishal	just script it externally I'd say (and then commit the updates to each branch as needed)	00:12
	if the files just contain json, should be doable using bash and jq	00:13
rustyshackleford	never heard of jq. neat	00:14
	I was thinking git and bash	00:14
vishal	yeah it is super useful	00:14
rustyshackleford	use git to generate a diff or a patch or something	00:14
vishal	3jq will even help you learn it	00:14
rustyshackleford	vishal: do you know any nice tutorials or examples?	00:14
vishal	hmm parsing jq with bash is a bad idea	00:14
	err parsing json	00:14
	diff could work if the changes are always consistent, but they can often fail to apply	00:15
	if say 4.0 changed independently of older versions	00:15
	with jq you should be able to so some smarter key/value based checking	00:15
rustyshackleford	I don't necessarily need to parse it	00:16
	← mattcen left	00:16
vishal	but it entirely depends on the contents of these files, and the rules that apply w.r.t. what changes and in what manner	00:16
rustyshackleford	think of it this way: content_0.1.0.json should be mostly a subset of content_.0.2.0.json	00:16
	I was hoping to merge the files. I might be able to do this without parsing the content of the files	00:17
vishal	so what happens if you cp 1.0 -> 2.0. then make a new change in 2.0 that isn't in 1.0. then make a fixup in 1.0 that needs to go to 2.0. Your diff can potentially fail to apply in this case	00:17
	so you need to be smarter based on how you will merge them	00:17
	and git can't 'figure it out' for you	00:17
rustyshackleford	yeah idk how the heck this is going to work	00:18
vishal	and that's where I think parsing and making decisions comes in. But - I could be wrong, and maybe in your use case, a diff will work just fine	00:19
	in which case, great!	00:19
	its definitely the simpler option	00:19
rustyshackleford	so we have a somewhat retarded merging scheme	00:19
	that I think is the root cause of all this	00:19
	0.3.0 branches off of 0.2.0 which branches off 0.1.0	00:19
	→ leb joined	00:19
rustyshackleford	and we merge everything upstream daily	00:19
	we tend to have 3 releases in progress at any time	00:20
	→ mattcen joined	00:20
vishal	usually release process is that all development and fixes happens of the main 'master' and fixes get backported (cherry-picked) into older release branches as needed	00:20
	there are many ways of doing this sort of thing of course	00:21
	but generally if the process is getting in the way, and if you can change it to not, then by all means you should :)	00:21
rustyshackleford	this is driven by our business so I don't know a good way around it	00:22
	← moldybits left	00:22
	→ butterthebuddha joined	00:22
rustyshackleford	we want this in the july release, and this other feature in august	00:22
	so we have july and august releases on separate branches, being worked on simulataneously	00:22
	→ cdown joined	00:23
	← mattcen left	00:24
vishal	developing features on release branches that are intended to also eventually make it to other release branches sounds nightmarish..	00:24
	→ CodeHex joined	00:25
vishal	it is much easier to develop on a 'has all the things' master, make your commits well formed and contained, and then cherry-pick into these release branches as needed	00:25
	with good commit practices, there may still be conflicts here and there, but they /should/ be manageable	00:26
	→ victorqueiroz joined	00:26
	← libertyprime left	00:27
	→ ghoti_ joined	00:28
	← fphilipe left	00:34
rustyshackleford	vishal: I think a backwards approach is better	00:37
	well... maybe not. sometimes your depedent on other things	00:37
	but suppose you kept your feature outside of master	00:37
	until it is done and ready to be released	00:37
	merge that release branch and then release from master	00:37
	→ mattcen joined	00:37
	← dysfigured left	00:38
rustyshackleford	our release branch is somewhat nightmarish, but fits with how the business works	00:38
	→ dysfigured joined	00:40
	→ moldybits joined	00:40
	ghoti_ → ghoti	00:40
	← butterthebuddha left	00:46
	→ butterthebuddha joined	00:46
	→ Kaisyu7 joined	00:53
	→ yonder joined	00:53
	← vnr left	00:55
	← shawn_dones left	00:57
	→ thiago joined	00:58
	← magic_ninja left	00:59
	← cdown left	00:59
	→ magic_ninja joined	01:00
	→ cdown joined	01:00
	← Sasazuka left	01:02
	← kent\n left	01:03
	→ fphilipe joined	01:03
	→ kent\n joined	01:04
	← Fusl left	01:13
	→ Fusl joined	01:14
	→ rjsalts_ joined	01:17
	← rjsalts left	01:17
	→ azwieg103 joined	01:22
	→ Xeago_ joined	01:24
	← Xeago left	01:24
	Xeago_ → Xeago	01:25
	← motoko-chan left	01:27
	→ bambanx joined	01:28
	← nic-hartley left	01:29
	← CodeHex left	01:36
	← fphilipe left	01:37
	← durham left	01:42
	← F0rTex left	01:44
	→ F0rTex joined	01:45
	← boombatower left	01:46
	→ j9_ joined	01:48
	← wildermind left	01:51
	← Xeago left	01:52
	→ Xeago joined	01:52
	→ watabou_ joined	01:53
	→ Goplat joined	02:04
	← lagothrix left	02:04
	← cdown left	02:04
	→ lagothrix joined	02:04
	→ duderonomy joined	02:05
	→ libertyprime joined	02:06
	→ cdown joined	02:06
	← jcbitter left	02:07
	→ jcbitter joined	02:09
	← magic_ninja left	02:11
	rjsalts_ → rjsalts	02:11
	← azwieg103 left	02:12
	← jcbitter left	02:14
	→ jcbitter joined	02:15
	→ magic_ninja joined	02:22
	← watabou_ left	02:26
	← mattcen left	02:30
	→ mattcen joined	02:32
	← j9_ left	02:33
	← kjartan left	02:33
	← zulutango left	02:33
	→ fphilipe joined	02:33
	→ zulutango joined	02:35
	← Cabanossi left	02:36
	← hugh-adolph left	02:36
	→ kjartan joined	02:37
	→ Cabanossi joined	02:40
	← spacesuitdiver left	02:43
	→ mat001 joined	02:51
	← mattcen left	02:56
	← Enphuego left	02:58
	← victorqueiroz left	02:58
	← butterthebuddha left	03:01
	→ fatalhalt joined	03:04
	→ butterthebuddha joined	03:04
	→ mattcen joined	03:05
	← fphilipe left	03:07
	← wgrant left	03:16
	→ wgrant joined	03:17
	← mosh left	03:18
	← Cabanossi left	03:24
	→ Cabanossi joined	03:24
	← libertyprime left	03:24
	→ milkt joined	03:28
	← alyptik left	03:32
	← sboyd left	03:35
	← kermit left	03:39
	→ kermit joined	03:44
	← MACscr left	03:46
	→ veegee joined	03:49
	→ libertyprime joined	03:51
	← R2robot left	03:53
	← cd left	03:53
	← leprechau left	03:56
	← libertyprime left	03:57
	→ leprechau joined	03:58
	→ fphilipe joined	04:03
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	04:11
	← royal_screwup21 left	04:12
	← scientes left	04:19
	→ alyptik joined	04:22
	→ watabou_ joined	04:23
	← netj left	04:24
	→ regedit_ joined	04:24
	→ netj joined	04:24
	← milkt left	04:27
	← butterthebuddha left	04:28
	regedit_ → regedit	04:30
	→ podlech joined	04:35
	← cdown left	04:36
	→ kapilp joined	04:41
	→ Mighty_Mel joined	04:42
	→ tsdh joined	04:44
	→ blackmesa1 joined	04:48
	← blackmesa1 left	04:53
	→ ferdna joined	04:54
	→ g00s joined	04:55
	← cfoch left	05:09
	→ huatou joined	05:10
	← fatalhalt left	05:17
	← fphilipe left	05:18
	← Lucas_Gray left	05:18
	← podlech left	05:20
	→ sauvin joined	05:21
	→ macrover joined	05:23
	→ fphilipe joined	05:25
	← dhendrix left	05:26
	← jimender2 left	05:26
	← cxc99 left	05:27
	← mat001 left	05:27
	← bashfulshell left	05:27
	→ blackmesa1 joined	05:27
	← Nizumzen left	05:27
	← rodarmor left	05:28
	← d1rewolf left	05:28
	← rustyshackleford left	05:28
	← rougeth left	05:28
	← PavelB left	05:28
	← ggherdov left	05:28
	← nuck left	05:29
	← egp left	05:29
	← Fenhl left	05:29
	← fury left	05:29
	→ SkarmoutsosV joined	05:30
	← Ownix left	05:30
	→ jguddas-tr joined	05:30
	← jsatk left	05:30
	← bhelgaas left	05:30
	→ Mindi joined	05:32
	→ d1rewolf joined	05:33
	→ egp joined	05:33
	→ jsatk joined	05:33
	→ Fenhl joined	05:33
	→ bhelgaas joined	05:33
	→ rodarmor joined	05:33
	→ dhendrix joined	05:33
	→ jimender2 joined	05:33
	→ rougeth joined	05:33
	→ rustyshackleford joined	05:33
	→ nuck joined	05:33
	→ ggherdov joined	05:33
	→ bashfulshell joined	05:33
	← smitop left	05:33
	→ PavelB joined	05:34
	→ Ivo joined	05:34
	→ Ownix joined	05:34
	→ Nizumzen joined	05:34
	→ fury joined	05:34
	← jguddas-tr left	05:34
	→ BeerLover joined	05:35
	← ferdna left	05:36
	← qgTG left	05:37
	← jcbitter left	05:39
	→ nowhere_man joined	05:42
	← justanotheruser left	05:42
	← mattcen left	05:43
	← nowhereman left	05:45
	← xelxebar left	05:46
	→ xelxebar joined	05:46
	→ leeN joined	05:47
	→ sozuba joined	05:49
	→ mattcen joined	05:50
	← moldybits left	05:52
	← thiago left	05:55
	← mattcen left	05:55
	→ thefatma joined	05:57
	← thefatma left	05:59
	→ justanotheruser joined	06:02
	← leb left	06:02
	→ MACscr joined	06:04
	→ Repox joined	06:05
	← macrover left	06:12
	→ mattcen joined	06:14
	→ z\|bandito joined	06:15
	→ dartmouthed joined	06:16
	← SkarmoutsosV left	06:24
	→ cxc99 joined	06:24
	← Repox left	06:24
	→ Noti joined	06:25
	→ chele joined	06:27
	→ R2robot joined	06:28
	→ dege joined	06:29
	← leeN left	06:32
	→ durham joined	06:33
	← durham left	06:33
	→ mowcat joined	06:33
	→ libertyprime joined	06:34
	→ bachler joined	06:39
	← nowhere_man left	06:40
	→ TomyWork joined	06:40
	← Serus left	06:40
	← freeman42x left	06:42
	→ sQVe joined	06:42
	← Puffball left	06:45
	← kjartan left	06:45
	→ Serus joined	06:48
	← kapilp left	06:49
	→ kjartan joined	06:50
	→ Anthaas joined	06:56
	← Anthaas_ left	06:56
	← g00s left	06:57
	→ n3wborn joined	06:57
	→ nowhere_man joined	06:57
	→ g00s joined	06:57
	← Mighty_Mel left	06:58
	→ enoq joined	06:58
	← BeerLover left	06:59
	← blackmesa1 left	07:00
	→ BeerLover joined	07:03
	← nowhere_man left	07:04
	← BeerLover left	07:05
	← fphilipe left	07:13
	→ blackmesa1 joined	07:13
	→ Repox joined	07:13
	← libertyprime left	07:15
	← xcm left	07:15
	→ libertyprime joined	07:16
	→ xcm joined	07:17
	← libertyprime left	07:19
	← yonder left	07:20
	→ thefatma joined	07:20
	→ interrobangd_ joined	07:21
	→ libertyprime joined	07:21
	→ sgnls joined	07:22
	→ qgTG joined	07:25
	→ mathu joined	07:27
	→ BeerLover joined	07:27
mathu	i put out a PR on github, but then decided to take another approach for essentially the same problem. a github FAQ says that force push would corrupt the PR so that's right out - what's the idiomatic git way to correct the PR/branch that i took the wrong approach on? or is it just to close the PR and create another one?	07:30
	← cluelessperson left	07:31
	← dege left	07:32
	→ fphilipe joined	07:32
	← Fusl left	07:33
	→ Fusl joined	07:34
	→ DuckyDev joined	07:35
	← netj left	07:37
	→ netj joined	07:37
	→ dege joined	07:39
	→ mikecmpbll joined	07:40
	→ fairuz joined	07:41
	← Anthaas left	07:42
	→ SkarmoutsosV joined	07:42
	→ Anthaas joined	07:42
mathu	reading more, sounds like some people on stackoverflow successfully force pushed to a branch with an open PR	07:42
	yolo let's try it, i don't know that the reviewer has been online since the first update 0:)	07:43
	← gxt left	07:45
	← benharri left	07:46
osse	mathu: force pushing is correct	07:48
	from the github FAQ perspective I thin kyou want to "corrupt" the PR in this case	07:48
	→ kapilp joined	07:49
	← duderonomy left	07:50
mathu	yeah, further reading just said the old commits would be unreachable via the web ui. but like, yeah, of course	07:50
	thanks for confirming osse!	07:50
	→ jguddas-tr joined	07:50
	→ T_UNIX joined	07:54
	← ghoti left	07:55
	← thefatma left	07:57
	→ bolovanos joined	07:57
	← jguddas-tr left	08:05
	→ floppydh joined	08:05
	← sozuba left	08:06
	→ hiroprotagonist joined	08:07
	→ weird_error joined	08:12
	← j7k6 left	08:13
	→ ahmed89 joined	08:13
	→ thefatma joined	08:14
	→ j7k6 joined	08:14
	→ jguddas-tr joined	08:15
	← j7k6 left	08:15
	→ j7k6 joined	08:16
	← j7k6 left	08:16
	→ j7k6 joined	08:17
	→ sozuba joined	08:17
	← j7k6 left	08:18
	→ j7k6 joined	08:18
	← g00s left	08:21
	→ elichai2 joined	08:23
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	08:24
	→ TJ- joined	08:25
	← dege left	08:33
	→ OtakuSenpai joined	08:40
	→ Tobbi_1 joined	08:40
	← Tobbi_ left	08:40
	Tobbi_1 → Tobbi_	08:40
	→ rsrx joined	08:42
	→ drbean_ joined	08:47
	← drbean left	08:49
	← MIsAn left	08:53
	→ yuljk joined	08:53
	→ lacrymology joined	08:54
	← sz0 left	08:59
	→ sz0 joined	09:00
	← Murr left	09:00
	→ Murr joined	09:01
	← fairuz left	09:03
	← dhollinger left	09:03
	← Lucas_Gray left	09:04
	→ gloomy joined	09:05
	→ fairuz joined	09:05
	← strudla left	09:07
	→ strudla joined	09:07
	← dr_lepper left	09:07
	← nopf left	09:07
	← sybariten left	09:07
	→ i9c joined	09:08
	← neunon left	09:08
	← i7c left	09:08
	← nioncode left	09:08
	← Soliton left	09:08
	→ dr_lepper joined	09:09
	← hofmann3900 left	09:09
	i9c → i7c	09:09
	→ Soliton joined	09:10
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	09:10
	← Jackneill left	09:10
	← n3wborn left	09:10
	→ Jackneill joined	09:11
	→ nioncode joined	09:11
	← blackmesa1 left	09:13
hiroprotagonist	I was hoping that someone could help me clarify what should happen in a specific sitution?	09:17
	I inherited a git flow from my predecessor which is based on github flow	09:17
	https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/	09:17
	→ dhollinger joined	09:17
hiroprotagonist	There is a scenario where we create a feature branch and work on that. Before this is merged in work continues, branches created, merged in to master and deployed.	09:18
	when it comes to merging the original branch we do a git pull origin master --rebase on the branch, then on master and then merge.	09:19
	this seems to be working well and makes sense and creates a nice graph.	09:19
	← weird_error left	09:19
hiroprotagonist	The scenario I am asking about it when the feature branch has remote tracking. When we do the rebase the tracking gets out of sync. Is it reasonable to do a force push for the feature branch with tracking ?	09:20
	← bambanx left	09:20
hiroprotagonist	Does this even make sense?	09:20
	← fairuz left	09:23
	← catsup left	09:24
	→ catsup joined	09:24
	← catsup left	09:25
	→ catsup joined	09:25
	← Goplat left	09:29
	← DuckyDev left	09:31
	→ hellauer joined	09:31
	← zamba left	09:33
	→ zamba joined	09:35
	← BeerLover left	09:42
	← arecaceae left	09:43
	→ arecaceae joined	09:43
	→ hyperair joined	09:46
SilentGhost	hiroprotagonist: it depends how your ci/cd is setup, I'd say. purely from git perspective, if you're going to delete the branch upon merging you don't need to push, you'd have to use -D when deleting though, but that's a small difference. Naturally, if you want to verify your code in the new state, or perhaps you're in the middle of code review, then pushing is a must.	09:48
	← mowcat left	09:48
	← yuljk left	09:50
	→ yuljk joined	09:51
	→ mms_ joined	09:51
mms_	I am doing git clone for same repo and on cygwin I get all folders but on git bash I am getting just one folder	09:51
	can one help troubleshoot/fix this	09:51
	→ DuckyDev joined	09:52
	→ jacobat joined	09:53
mms_	I did fetch and pull still nothing happened	09:54
jacobat	Is it possible to edit files in a remote git repository without cloning it locally first??	09:54
osse	mms_: what do you mean by "get all folders" ?	09:54
hiroprotagonist	SilentGhost: we have no ci/cd setup presently. It is normally an issue when in the middle of a PR. I suppose just communicate to the team that a force push will happen.	09:54
osse	jacobat: not via git itself. github has this feature	09:54
jacobat	osse: I was expecting as much. Thanks.	09:55
SilentGhost	hiroprotagonist: you could wait till the end. it's not clear why you need to do rebase before code review is over	09:55
mms_	osse: when I clone on cygwin I see many folders which are there in repo	09:56
osse	mms_: is that a way of saying you cd into the repo and run ls ?	09:56
mms_	osse: yes	09:56
	→ blackmesa1 joined	09:56
hiroprotagonist	SilentGhost: Waiting until the end will be fine in most scenarios, however if there are a lot of changes on master then the rebase could get a hairy.	09:57
osse	mms_: !repro	09:57
gitinfo	mms_: [!transcript] Please paste (using https://gist.github.com/ or similar) a transcript ( https://git.io/viMGr ) of your terminal session so we can see exactly what you see	09:57
hiroprotagonist	SilentGhost: Keeping the feature branch up to date as we go along feels better apart from the force push	09:57
	→ milkt joined	09:58
SilentGhost	hiroprotagonist: if you're working alone it's not a problem at all, the possible conflicts would have to be resolved sooner or later. I don't think doing multiple rebases simplifies things	09:58
mms_	osse: https://gist.github.com/imiten/d6d7407a751e60c8dc3549fca4d10b15	09:59
	→ BeerLover joined	10:00
mms_	osse: different user on different laptop trying git clone and gets just one folder	10:00
	ikonia_ → ikonia	10:00
	← jacobat left	10:00
	← lankanmon left	10:01
hiroprotagonist	SilentGhost: What I have been worried about is that there is a better(tm) way of doing this or not doing this at all. I don't know anyone else who uses git really :) but it sounds like I am not missing anything	10:01
osse	mms_: if you don't have the equivalent output from the other computer I cannot compare	10:01
mms_	ok wait	10:01
osse	also, are you cloning a repo then switching to a different folder?	10:03
	or are ~/tmp and /cygdrive/d/work/tmp the same?	10:04
mms_	osse: check now	10:04
	osse: updated the git	10:04
	osse: gist I mean with other user data	10:06
osse	why cd d: ?	10:07
	← veegee left	10:08
mms_	its cygwin	10:11
	osse: its same as /cygdrive/d	10:11
	osse: cygwin thing of file system	10:12
osse	ok, so you're cloning the repo then cd'ing somewhere else?	10:12
mms_	osse: no....its same place	10:12
osse	when did you not just cd Release like you did on the laptop?	10:12
mms_	osse: there are two outputs in that gist. one from my laptop with cygwin and other is from colleage laptop with git bash	10:13
	osse: d: etc. is from my laptop and c: is from colleage laptop	10:13
	osse: Sagar is colleage and I am Miten	10:13
osse	Yes I realize that	10:14
	← watabou_ left	10:16
osse	I just don't understand why you cd back and forth	10:20
	Basically I don't trust the gist	10:20
	→ yyy- joined	10:21
	→ mikecmpb_ joined	10:21
mms_	osse: if know some troubleshooting command share	10:22
	osse: not sure about your comments.....its 2 outputs shared in that gist...	10:22
osse	in both repos, run: git rev-parse HEAD; git ls-tree HEAD	10:22
	mms_: My comments (and questions you didn't answer) is why you cd d: then cd here and there back and forth when you could have just done cd Release after cloning like your colleague did	10:23
	mms_: Because it looks to me like you run ls in a different folder	10:23
	← mikecmpbll left	10:23
	← Newami left	10:24
mms_	osse: I clonded in d:/work/tmp	10:27
osse	why does the prompt say ~/tmp then?	10:28
mms_	osse: its just file system thing way cygwin shows it....its has its own /home/....	10:29
osse	So /home/Miten.Mehta/tmp and /cygdrive/d/work/tmp are the same folder?	10:31
mms_	osse: they are different	10:31
	osse: I wanted to clone in /cygdrive/d/work/tmp so I went there and did clone	10:31
osse	no you didn't	10:32
	not according to the gist	10:32
	you cloned first, then changed folders	10:32
	← regedit left	10:33
mms_	osse: which line is confusing you ?	10:34
	→ WhiskerBiscuit joined	10:35
	← jguddas-tr left	10:35
	→ settermjd joined	10:35
mms_	osse: let me come back with one more try	10:36
	← mms_ left	10:36
	← mikecmpb_ left	10:36
	→ mikecmpbll joined	10:38
	← dartmouthed left	10:39
	→ mms_ joined	10:44
mms_	osse: updated gist	10:44
	osse: noticed that on Sagar laptop the git clone is doing checkout step but on mine it does	10:44
	← gloomy left	10:46
mms_	hi git clone command is not doing the checking out files phase	10:46
	→ gloomy joined	10:47
	← gloomy left	10:47
	← BeerLover left	10:48
	→ watabou_ joined	10:48
	→ gloomy joined	10:49
	← gloomy left	10:49
	→ gloomy joined	10:52
	→ planetcall\|work joined	10:52
	← gloomy left	10:52
	→ lankanmon joined	10:54
	→ fairuz joined	10:54
	← fairuz left	10:55
osse	mms_: now it makes sense	10:58
	can you run git rev-parse HEAD; git ls-tree HEAD in both?	10:58
	← mms_ left	10:59
	← igemnace left	11:01
	→ jguddas-tr joined	11:02
	← settermjd left	11:04
	← TJ- left	11:09
	← elichai2 left	11:12
	→ mms_ joined	11:12
mms_	hi on some laptops the repo is not cloning full	11:12
	← madprops left	11:13
mms_	how to troubleshoot why its not downloading all folders	11:13
osse	can you run git rev-parse HEAD; git ls-tree HEAD in both?	11:14
	← blackmesa1 left	11:17
	← ahmed89 left	11:17
osse	and git status	11:20
	← watabou_ left	11:22
	→ blackmesa1 joined	11:23
	→ devish joined	11:26
devish	Is there a way to delete a branch (remote) such that it cannot be recovered?	11:26
	→ ricekrispie2 joined	11:27
_ikke_	no, not without having direct access to the remote repository	11:27
devish	I have complete access	11:28
	← mms_ left	11:28
	← ricekrispie left	11:29
grawity	first just delete the branch as normal, then run `git reflog expire --expire=now --all` and `git gc --prune=now` on the server-side repo	11:29
	→ pR0Ps_ joined	11:29
	← blackmesa1 left	11:29
grawity	(commands copied from github's "oops sensitive data" article)	11:29
	← pR0Ps left	11:29
	pR0Ps_ → pR0Ps	11:29
devish	cool...thanks	11:30
	→ gxt joined	11:32
	→ blackmesa1 joined	11:38
	→ Jackneilll joined	11:43
	← Jackneill left	11:47
	→ shawn_dones joined	11:49
	← Murr left	11:53
	→ Murr joined	11:54
	→ delboy1978uk joined	11:55
delboy1978uk	hi guys o/	11:55
	is there a way of undoing a commit, and leaving the actual changes in place as uncommitted changes?	11:55
BtbN	git reset	11:55
delboy1978uk	doesnt that roll back the changes though?	11:56
BtbN	Only if you do a hard reset.	11:56
delboy1978uk	ah!	11:56
	i always do hard resets	11:56
	cool, let me try, and thanks BtbN	11:56
	awesome	11:57
	→ nowhere_man joined	12:00
	→ subopt joined	12:04
	← blackmesa1 left	12:10
	← milkt left	12:11
	← WhiskerBiscuit left	12:18
	→ no_gravity joined	12:20
no_gravity	Hello! I am looking at a commit with "git log -p --word-diff --word-diff-regex=." but it shows me lines with added tabs as completely deleted and added.	12:20
	I never saw that happen. What is going on?	12:21
	→ quackgyver joined	12:24
	→ Nawab joined	12:25
	← Nawab left	12:27
	← OtakuSenpai left	12:28
	→ OtakuSenpai joined	12:28
	← Repox left	12:33
	← netj left	12:34
	→ netj joined	12:34
no_gravity	Figured it out.	12:36
	--word-diff --word-diff-regex=. seems to not work for whitespace.	12:36
	← queip left	12:37
	→ fendor joined	12:41
fendor	not entirely git, but how can I reopen a pr that has been merged and reverted afterwards?	12:41
Habbie	what service?	12:42
	← no_gravity left	12:43
_ikke_	fendor: In most cases, you probably have to create a new PR	12:43
fendor	github	12:43
_ikke_	If the branch has been deleted, you cannot open it anyway	12:44
	← jguddas-tr left	12:44
fendor	_ikke_, but github pr shows that there is no diff	12:44
	← satoriprints left	12:44
Habbie	then it was not reverted	12:44
	can you show us?	12:44
fendor	Habbie, what is the best way to show?	12:44
	github link?	12:44
Habbie	works for me	12:45
fendor	https://github.com/haskell/haskell-ide-engine/commits/master	12:45
	revert is Revert "Merge pull request #1237 from fendor/add-package-tests"	12:45
	→ queip joined	12:45
Habbie	ok	12:45
fendor	original pr: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-ide-engine/pull/1237	12:45
	← queip left	12:46
Habbie	ok	12:46
	and the new pr?	12:47
	→ azwieg103 joined	12:47
fendor	I didnt open one, couldnt since github says there are no differences	12:47
Habbie	show us that	12:48
fendor	here is the brnach that got merged: https://github.com/fendor/haskell-ide-engine/tree/add-package-tests/test/unit	12:49
	→ mowcat joined	12:49
fendor	https://github.com/fendor/haskell-ide-engine/tree/add-package-test	12:49
	https://github.com/fendor/haskell-ide-engine/tree/add-package-tests	12:49
	→ benharri joined	12:49
fendor	https://github.com/haskell/haskell-ide-engine/compare/master...fendor:add-package-tests	12:49
Habbie	There isn’t anything to compare.	12:49
	haskell:master is up to date with all commits from fendor:add-package-tests.	12:49
	y	12:49
	-y	12:49
	did you rebase, as was requested?	12:49
	well	12:50
	"@fendor Please update this branch to work with current master, and we can merge it again."	12:50
	it's best to also rebase	12:50
fendor	Habbie, this request has been reverted in irc.	12:51
	but yeah, will try it	12:51
	i fail to correctly rebase it...	12:52
	→ queip joined	12:53
	← queip left	12:53
	→ dege joined	12:55
fendor	git rebase master, right?	12:56
Kobaz	how come i can do git diff origin/1.9:AEL/CoreCallRouter.ael AEL/CoreCallRouter.ael	12:56
	but not git diff AEL/CoreCallRouter.ael origin/1.9:AEL/CoreCallRouter.ael	12:57
	oh	12:57
	prefix with --	12:57
	git diff -- origin/1.9:AEL/CoreCallRouter.ael AEL/CoreCallRouter.ae	12:57
	→ CodeSlingerPaul joined	12:59
	← dege left	13:00
	← kjartan left	13:02
	← xelxebar left	13:02
	→ xelxebar joined	13:02
	→ courrier joined	13:02
	→ rafasc joined	13:03
	→ gloomy joined	13:04
	← mowcat left	13:04
	← nowhere_man left	13:06
	→ kjartan joined	13:07
	→ kenlee joined	13:08
	← devish left	13:17
	→ nowhere_man joined	13:17
	← stfn left	13:18
	→ jguddas-tr joined	13:19
	→ stfn joined	13:19
	→ blackswan joined	13:19
	→ watabou_ joined	13:20
blackswan	i am trying to debug a problem with gitlab and setting GIT_CURL_VERBOSE=1 in the environment doesn't seem to do anything.	13:20
osse	maybe you're using ssh ?	13:20
blackswan	oh	13:21
	ok	13:21
	maybe i don't know what i'm doing is the problem	13:21
	thx	13:21
	→ Silenced joined	13:21
osse	git remote -v	13:21
	← sQVe left	13:21
osse	if it's ssh you can use GIT_SSH_COMMAND='ssh -vv' or something like that	13:21
blackswan	my problem is that i am getting "remote: GitLab: You are not allowed to force push code to a protected branch on this project."	13:22
	→ queip joined	13:22
pandem	use a different branch or unprotect the branch?	13:23
blackswan	and i do not understand what that means.	13:23
	→ howell joined	13:23
rafasc	blackswan: that's a gitlab setting that pretty much means what it says.	13:23
blackswan	i didn't protect a branch. not on purpose. i don't know anything about protecting branches.	13:23
pandem	you can set protected branches on gitlab that you can only merge request to	13:23
rafasc	you are not allowed to force push into that branch.	13:23
blackswan	hence my confusion	13:23
	→ ghoti joined	13:23
blackswan	oh	13:23
	wait. hmm.	13:23
	← jguddas-tr left	13:24
rafasc	blackswan: probably some setting protects master by default.	13:24
blackswan	ok, i am an idiot who has not had enough caffeine.	13:24
	→ pllong joined	13:26
	→ clime joined	13:27
	← yyy- left	13:27
clime	i just encontered something quite weird	13:27
	i tried git pull <repo url> master, and expected it will pull new commits as well as annotated tags attached to those commits.	13:28
	Yet, it did not pull tags	13:28
	Then i ran git pull <repo url> master --tags and it fetched the tags	13:28
	yet --tags option for git pull is undocumented and should not even be needed according to --no-tags description	13:28
	anyone knows what's up with this?	13:29
osse	are you sure those tags points to commits in master?	13:29
clime	osse: i would need to check it but i suppose so	13:29
osse	if they aren't then there is no mystery	13:30
	→ yyy- joined	13:30
	← Murr left	13:30
clime	well, there is still the --tags options, which is not documented...at least in my man pages	13:30
rafasc	wrt documentation, I guess that could be explained better. The main cause is that pull is fetch+merge and --tags only applies to the fetch part.	13:30
clime	that's a mystery i think	13:31
	ok	13:31
rafasc	if you check git pull -h; you'll see they separate.	13:31
clime	ok, i can see --tags there	13:32
	but it is missing in my man pages under 'Options related to fetching'	13:32
rafasc	has to do with pull forwarding options to fetch. You can send a patch to the mailing list improving the documentation. It's a great first contribution	13:32
clime	for man git pull	13:32
gitinfo	the git-pull manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-pull.html	13:32
clime	ok, cool!	13:32
	→ Murr joined	13:33
	→ cd joined	13:34
clime	thanks, i am cloning the repo upstream repo to see to which branch the tag relate	13:34
	→ scientes joined	13:35
clime	but it's probably unnecessary cause i can see it already in my fork...	13:35
	well, it is attached to a commit, which is in master and that i downloaded before	13:36
osse	git branch --contains v1.2.3.	13:36
	does that print master?	13:37
clime	yes	13:37
	in the fork it prints * master	13:37
osse	Which is the same repo you ran "git pull <repo url> master" in ?	13:38
rafasc	but that means you have the tag in the first place, otherwise it would not resolve v.1.2.3 ...	13:38
clime	rafasc: i did already git pull <repo url> master --tags, which downloaded the tag	13:38
	osse: yes	13:39
osse	then there are signs of mystery	13:39
rafasc	I think it may be related to the fact you are specifying 'master'	13:41
	which is resolved to refs/heads/master:refs/remote/remotename/mater;	13:41
	and the tag following only applies when you do a bare $git pull (?);	13:42
clime	rafasc: ah, that's probably true	13:42
rafasc	did not confirm.	13:42
clime	right, i will try	13:42
	→ jguddas-tr joined	13:43
clime	idk, i need to reclone the repo, which will take a while, i'll confirm later	13:43
rafasc	clime: make use of --reference: git clone --reference /path/to/old/repo url newclone	13:45
	so you don't need to transfer objects that already live in your machine.	13:45
clime	huh, cool	13:45
	→ barteks2x joined	13:46
rafasc	just be aware that it will actually use the objects from the referenced repo if it needs. So don't move it or erase it.	13:47
	or add --dissociate, which will undo the dependency after cloning.	13:48
	← sgnls left	13:49
	← chymera left	13:49
clime	ye, with --reference that's much faster	13:50
	→ chymera joined	13:51
	← jguddas-tr left	13:51
clime	so i did only git pull <upstream_url>, ommitting the 'master' but it still did not pull the tag	13:52
	← watabou_ left	13:52
clime	git pull <upstream_url> --tags did fetch the tag	13:53
	maybe i need to have the remote for upstream url added	13:54
	← subopt left	13:54
rafasc	clime: have you checked if you configured git to not pull tags?	13:56
clime	i tried git config -l, if i see any remote.<name>.tagOpt but didn't see anything like that, will check again	13:57
	rafasc: it works as expected if i first do git remote add upstream <repo url> and then git pull upstream	13:58
	← Jackneilll left	13:58
rafasc	interesting.	13:58
	hit the mailing list. This is either worthy documenting, or a bug.	13:59
	→ Jackneilll joined	14:01
clime	okay, i will try to make a patch for the --tags thing in git pull man pages, i will mention this as well	14:02
	→ bluezone joined	14:03
	→ watabou_ joined	14:11
	→ boombatower joined	14:11
	← barteks2x left	14:14
	→ jguddas-tr joined	14:17
	→ greggerz joined	14:18
	→ liaolijun joined	14:19
	← jguddas-tr left	14:24
	→ dege joined	14:24
	→ Elon_Satoshi joined	14:26
	→ oatmealraisin joined	14:26
	← Copenhagen_Bram left	14:28
	→ AtumT joined	14:28
	← kapilp left	14:28
	→ spacesuitdiver joined	14:30
	→ aweb joined	14:31
	← delboy1978uk left	14:33
	→ barteks2x joined	14:34
	→ jguddas-tr joined	14:35
	← haasn left	14:39
	→ haasn joined	14:41
	→ savolla joined	14:41
	→ thiago joined	14:43
	← watabou_ left	14:44
	← spacesuitdiver left	14:46
	← cliluw left	14:47
	→ cliluw joined	14:48
	→ spacesuitdiver joined	14:48
	← spacesuitdiver left	14:52
	← aweb left	14:52
	→ cdown joined	14:52
	← floppydh left	14:56
	← Noti left	15:01
	← courrier left	15:02
	→ courrier joined	15:07
	← cdown left	15:10
	← thiago left	15:11
	← enoq left	15:14
	← savolla left	15:14
	→ sbeyer joined	15:15
	← oatmealraisin left	15:16
	← Murr left	15:17
	→ Murr joined	15:18
	Rh0nda → Rhonda	15:20
	← silverballz left	15:20
	→ silverballz joined	15:21
	← liaolijun left	15:21
	← raffo left	15:22
	→ oatmealraisin joined	15:23
	← libertyprime left	15:24
	→ fahadash joined	15:25
	→ Phylock joined	15:28
	← dskull left	15:28
	← chele left	15:28
	→ dskull joined	15:29
	→ aweb joined	15:30
	→ gtbuchanan_ joined	15:32
	→ nowhereman joined	15:32
	← nowhere_man left	15:32
	→ tang^ joined	15:35
	← gtbuchanan left	15:35
	→ blackmesa1 joined	15:38
	→ watabou_ joined	15:40
	→ r1ch joined	15:42
	← hellauer left	15:45
	→ jcbitter joined	15:45
	← jguddas-tr left	15:46
	← hiroprotagonist left	15:48
	← interrobangd_ left	15:49
	← nowhereman left	15:51
	→ cdown joined	15:51
	← courrier left	15:55
	← bashfulshell left	15:55
	← Lucas_Gray left	15:55
	← BrianBlaze left	15:58
	→ BrianBlaze joined	15:59
	→ nowhereman joined	15:59
	BlessJah1 → Blessjah	16:01
	← blackmesa1 left	16:03
	→ thiago joined	16:04
	← thefatma left	16:06
	← Murr left	16:06
	→ savolla joined	16:06
	→ Murr joined	16:07
	→ nowhere_man joined	16:09
	← nowhereman left	16:09
	APK → AKPWD	16:11
	→ impermanence joined	16:12
	→ torontoyes joined	16:12
chymera	vishal: so `gpg --sign somefile` works fine	16:13
torontoyes	I was attempting to git revert to a previous commit	16:13
	I attempted that 3 times.	16:13
rafasc	torontoyes: "revert to a previous commit". git revert reverts particular commits, it is not a "go back to this state".	16:14
torontoyes	When I try to revert, it says Branch is up todate with origin/master	16:14
	→ seaef-tnw joined	16:14
	→ thefatma joined	16:15
vishal	chymera: run with GIT_TRACE to try and better track what might be happening	16:15
torontoyes	rafasc: ohh..ic	16:15
	how do I revert to a paticular commit?	16:15
_ikke_	how far back is that commit?	16:15
torontoyes	8 commits	16:15
	back in time?	16:16
rafasc	depends if you are willing to rewrite history or not.	16:16
	← edwardly left	16:16
_ikke_	So you want those 7 following commits to be gone?	16:16
rafasc	you can revert all those 8 commits, or reset back.	16:16
	→ Repox joined	16:16
	→ Lordveda joined	16:16
torontoyes	I want to reset to a paticular commit and let it build of the state of the files of that commit	16:16
	→ achen_ joined	16:16
_ikke_	So you want those 7 following commits to be gone?	16:16
torontoyes	yes	16:17
_ikke_	git reset --hard <commit>	16:17
	where <commit> is the hash of the commit you want to go back to	16:17
rafasc	^ will nuke all uncommited changes.	16:17
	← nowhere_man left	16:17
	→ hellauer joined	16:18
Lordveda	If someone wants to step back from one commit to its parent removing the commit but keeping the changed files which git reset options to use?	16:18
	← watabou_ left	16:18
	← thefatma left	16:19
rafasc	Lordveda: --soft or --mixed, depending if you want the staging area modified or not.	16:20
Lordveda	explain the staging area plz	16:20
rafasc	--soft will leave everything untouched, --mixed (the default) will change the staging area.	16:20
	!book	16:20
gitinfo	There are several good books available about git; 'Pro Git' is probably the best: http://git-scm.com/book but also look at !bottomup !cs !gcs !designers !gitt !vcbe and !parable	16:20
	→ _noblegas joined	16:21
Lordveda	reading an entire book won't do a fast solution for a problem :)	16:21
	→ sgen joined	16:21
rafasc	Lordveda: staging area, index, cache, are all names to a structure that represents the snapshot of your project.	16:21
	when you use git add; you are adding changes to the staging area.	16:21
Lordveda	I want the commit to be reset so that I can re-add the changed files one by one	16:22
	→ igemnace joined	16:22
Lordveda	to the staging area of course	16:23
rafasc	Lordveda: the staging area is one of the fundamental blocks for day-to-day git. If you are using git, you need to be aware of the existance of this.	16:23
chymera	vishal: super weird, it seems to have been a temporary fluke, now everything works :-/	16:23
	at any rate, thank you :)	16:23
vishal	cheers	16:23
rafasc	Lordveda: then you want --mixed; or just $git reset;	16:23
	→ Newami joined	16:24
torontoyes	rafasc: Thanks	16:24
	← Repox left	16:24
Lordveda	rafasc: after I do a git reset without option and do a git status I don't see that my files are changed but I a clean tree	16:24
	← achen_ left	16:25
	→ mat001 joined	16:25
rafasc	Lordveda: then it means your files match that commit.	16:26
Lordveda	explaining my problem: I have made a commit that includes 2 files, I want to revert back to the previous commit and then add the changes for each file as an entity	16:27
	So I want the files to be as if they were removed from the staging area as well but keeping the changes to those files, which git reset option would achieve that?	16:28
rafasc	Lordveda: did you 'add' this files for the first time in these commits?	16:29
	→ thefatma joined	16:29
Lordveda	rafasc: yes	16:29
rafasc	you may want to use: $git reset -N commit, then.	16:29
	→ watabou_ joined	16:29
rafasc	or do the reset, and use $git rm --cached <file>;	16:30
Lordveda	what will this git reset -N do?	16:30
rafasc	I think the latter is better.	16:30
Lordveda	I know that git reset -N commit will do a mixed reset	16:31
	I don't get what the -N option do	16:31
rafasc	the -N, is "intent-to-add", basically it would reset it an empty file.	16:31
	thus, my suggestion of removing it from the staging area, so you can add it again.	16:32
	be sure to use --cached, otherwise it will also remove from your directory.	16:33
Lordveda	so if I want to reset the latest commit, I would issue $git reset -N <-- without any other options?	16:33
rafasc	if it's the last commit, you can just $git rm --cached <file>; git commit --ammend;	16:34
	amend*	16:34
	← watabou_ left	16:34
Lordveda	actually I want the commit which includes the two files to be reset	16:34
	and then add each file in its own commit	16:35
rafasc	with reset, you would need to specify "the last commit", git reset HEAD;	16:35
	Lordveda: git rm --cached file1 file2; git commit --amend; git add file1; git commit; git add file2; git commit;	16:35
	→ strk joined	16:36
strk	what's a quick command to get lits of files changed in a commit ?	16:36
rafasc	strk: for scripting or for inspecting?	16:37
strk	scripting	16:37
Lordveda	rafasc: should I do git co to the parent commit first?	16:37
	← surfist left	16:37
tang^	git show --name-only will work	16:37
	for scripting maybe add --porcelain	16:38
	→ UrsoBranco joined	16:38
rafasc	git diff-tree HEAD~10 --name-status	16:38
	→ surfist joined	16:39
rafasc	tang^: show doesn't have a --porcelain, that's status.	16:39
tang^	oh, sorry	16:39
	← Murr left	16:40
	→ Murr joined	16:41
	← Kronuz left	16:41
rafasc	Lordveda: git co; is an alias. I don't know if that's just an alias for commit or checkout, try to avoid referencing aliases when asking for support.	16:42
	← gxt left	16:44
	← thefatma left	16:46
	→ theoceaniscool joined	16:47
	→ sboyd joined	16:48
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	16:48
	← mikecmpbll left	16:50
	← fphilipe left	16:51
	→ duderonomy joined	16:52
	→ nowhere_man joined	16:53
	→ courrier joined	16:55
	→ leb joined	16:55
	← aweb left	16:56
	← netj left	16:59
	→ igemnace_ joined	16:59
	← igemnace left	16:59
	← TomyWork left	16:59
	→ netj joined	16:59
	← sgen left	16:59
	← Fusl left	17:00
	← boombatower left	17:00
	→ boombatower joined	17:01
	→ nelsnelson joined	17:01
	→ Fusl joined	17:01
	← thiago left	17:02
	→ wildermind joined	17:03
	→ blackmesa joined	17:06
	← seaef-tnw left	17:06
	→ seaef-tnw joined	17:08
	→ thiago joined	17:09
	← yyy- left	17:09
tang^	sounds like an alias for somebody coming from svn	17:11
	← savolla left	17:12
	← Lucas_Gray left	17:12
strk	the --name-only didn't give me full path, some of them started with .../	17:13
	git show --name-only, that is	17:13
	the diff-tree only showed me changed directories	17:14
	← blackmesa left	17:14
tang^	heh... I was just trying that myself	17:14
	← kjartan left	17:15
osse	strk: git diff --name-only commit~ commit	17:15
	← sboyd left	17:15
strk	thanks, whorks	17:16
	← fendor left	17:16
tang^	I need that for building a list of files to copy from my repo to another directory	17:17
	→ czart joined	17:17
tang^	except for certain exceptions	17:17
rafasc	for scripting I would avoid using diff.	17:18
	git diff-tree -r c9cef0a85402768c3b6fc0282dcc7d45a095fcd3 --name-only --no-commit-id	17:18
tang^	diff-tree only shows the root directory's changes?	17:19
rafasc	just look into diff-tree and its options.	17:19
	→ Mr__Anderson joined	17:19
rafasc	tang^: yes, but you can ask it to recurse with -r.	17:19
	← Mr__Anderson left	17:19
	→ kjartan joined	17:19
rafasc	tang^: it's similar how $ls works.	17:19
tang^	oh, there it is	17:20
	I didn't go far enough down the documentation	17:20
	thanks	17:21
rafasc	also, -z worth to look at for robust scripts.	17:22
	for filenames with spaces/newlines	17:23
	→ fphilipe joined	17:24
	← seaef-tnw left	17:25
tang^	oh geez. I hope no filename has a newline in it	17:25
	← courrier left	17:26
	→ seaef-tnw joined	17:29
	← quackgyver left	17:29
	← R2robot left	17:33
Lordveda	rafasc: actually I am not on an actual project, I am doing a git training from a website https://gitexercices.fracz.com/	17:37
	https://gitexercises.fracz.com/	17:38
	I am doing the 14th exercise	17:39
	→ yyy joined	17:40
rafasc	what is the name of the 14th?	17:41
	→ leeN joined	17:41
	← energizer left	17:42
Lordveda	split-commit	17:42
	→ energizer_ joined	17:42
	→ gxt joined	17:42
	→ blackmesa joined	17:43
Lordveda	My progression is at https://gitexercises.fracz.com/committer/49185e38fa67a83a36e0e5d65944605e2d32e771	17:43
	← Ivo left	17:43
Lordveda	when I undergo the exercise I start by doing git status	17:44
	then do git log --oneline --color --decorate	17:44
rafasc	I already typed the solution here.	17:45
Lordveda	when I did git reset -N I have got a clean working tree	17:45
rafasc	although I used a different approach than the one they are hinting.	17:45
	Lordveda: you need to specify the commit you want to reset.	17:46
	like: git reset HEAD~1;	17:46
Lordveda	the branches in this tree are master and split-commit	17:46
	I did git reset -N split-commit	17:46
	→ g00s joined	17:47
	← nelsnelson left	17:47
Lordveda	or should I do git reset -N HEAD@{0}?	17:47
rafasc	(No need for N)	17:47
	← blackmesa left	17:48
Lordveda	fine no need for the N	17:48
rafasc	since this is the most recent commit, you can do HEAD~1	17:48
	ChanServ set mode: +o	17:48
	→ nelsnelson joined	17:48
	Eugene changed the topic to: #git Welcome to #git, the place for git* related discussion \| First visit? Read: https://gitirc.eu \| Current stable version: 2.21.0 \| Getting "cannot send to channel"? /msg gitinfo .voice \| This channel is logged: https://gitirc.eu/log \| git-hg: Don't you know that's poison?	17:48
	Eugene set mode: -o	17:48
Lordveda	so I should reset to make the tree revert back to HEAD@{1}?	17:49
	and that is issued while I am on the latest commit? right?	17:49
	rafasc: you mentioned git rm --cached file, would this still apply to this case and this exercise?	17:50
rafasc	Lordveda: HEAD@{1} and HEAD~1 mean different things.	17:50
Lordveda	when I do reflog I find HEAD@{1}	17:51
	and HEAD@{0}	17:51
	etc	17:51
	→ savolla joined	17:51
Lordveda	so what is the difference between HEAD@{1} and HEAD~1	17:51
rafasc	man gitrevisions	17:52
gitinfo	the gitrevisions manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/gitrevisions.html	17:52
rafasc	HEAD~1 means: the first ancestor following first-parent.	17:53
Lordveda	i.e from 0 to 1	17:53
rafasc	where HEAD@{1} is the first entry in the reflog.	17:53
Lordveda	??	17:53
rafasc	HEAD~1 is a way to say parent, HEAD~2 grand-parent, etc.	17:54
Lordveda	so I need to do git reset HEAD~1 and not HEAD@{1}	17:54
rafasc	correct.	17:54
Lordveda	so when I am on the HEAD@{0} and I need to reset to the parent I need to type git reset HEAD~1	17:55
osse	HEAD@{0} and HEAD~0 are both just equal to HEAD	17:56
rafasc	I suggest you stop using reflog notation until you understand what the reflog is. The something@{n}	17:57
Lordveda	so the entries in the reflog aren't Zero-based?	17:57
osse	yes they are	17:58
rafasc	the reflog is important for recovering things. But it's more important you understand the other concepts first.	17:58
	→ lungaro joined	17:58
	→ mikecmpbll joined	17:58
lungaro	I have a really annoying issue with github and key management, hoping someone can help me organize it. I thought i'd be smart enough to manage ssh keys in my ssh-agent, but the problem is I use ssh mux connections	17:58
rafasc	Lordveda: for example, the reflog has no "order" you don't know if commit HEAD@{1} comes before or after commit HEAD@{2}.	17:59
Lordveda	so I should use HEAD@{1} or HEAD~1 to reset to the parent?	17:59
lungaro	so mux connections dont die after you change the keys so they are never updated. Is there a smarter way to update the mux'd connections?	17:59
rafasc	the latter.	17:59
Lordveda	got you rafasc	17:59
	→ Sasazuka joined	17:59
Lordveda	the order in reflog doesn't need to be the same order of commits	17:59
	it refers more to everything that occured to the working tree as a whole	18:00
	and thus it can't be used in reset except with caution, am I right?	18:00
rafasc	Lordveda: not even that. If tracks how refs (branches) change over time.	18:00
Lordveda	bottom line reflog is more general	18:01
	??	18:01
osse	no, the reflog is something else completely	18:01
rafasc	Lordveda: for example, if you checkout A; checkout B; checkout C; (just switching branches). HEAD@{0}=C, HEAD@{1}=B, HEAD@{2}=C	18:01
	← thiago left	18:02
rafasc	Lordveda: it tracks how your references change over time.	18:02
	and HEAD is just a reference that defines what you have currently checked out.	18:02
Lordveda	i.e the commands I issue through git are logged within the reflog	18:02
	in the order I am entering them	18:02
rafasc	Lordveda: the ones that change references, yes.	18:02
	← Murr left	18:03
Lordveda	thus HEAD@{x} doesn't necessarily == HEAD~x	18:03
osse	correct	18:03
rafasc	that's rarely true.	18:03
osse	and your HEAD@{x} is probably not equal to my HEAD@{x}	18:04
Lordveda	rafasc: thanks for clarifying things	18:04
	→ Murr joined	18:04
rafasc	also, HEAD@{x} == HEAD@{x+n} may be true for some n.	18:05
	→ freeman42x joined	18:05
	← nowhere_man left	18:06
rafasc	for example: try doing a bunch of $git checkout <the branch you are at>;	18:06
	← kgrandly left	18:07
rafasc	if you look at the reflog, you'll see a bunch of entries referring to the same commit.	18:07
	→ pks_ joined	18:15
	← pks left	18:16
	pks_ → pks	18:16
	→ jubal joined	18:17
	← barteks2x left	18:20
	→ barteks2x_ joined	18:20
	→ sgnls joined	18:24
	→ fattredd joined	18:24
	← jcbitter left	18:25
	→ jcbitter joined	18:26
	→ plexigras joined	18:28
	← sauvin left	18:32
	← sz0 left	18:33
	← plexigras left	18:40
	→ linux_dr joined	18:41
	← hexa- left	18:41
	→ dartmouthed joined	18:41
	→ plexigras joined	18:42
	→ hexa- joined	18:47
	→ kneeki joined	18:50
	→ elricsfate joined	18:53
elricsfate	Hey folks. When using the env branching model and rebasing, should the rebasing be creating NEW commits to the branch?	18:54
	← hellauer left	18:54
elricsfate	https://www.wearefine.com/mingle/env-branching-with-git/	18:54
	→ Repox joined	18:55
tang^	rebasing creates new hashes for existing commits, yes	18:55
elricsfate	Hmmm. OK	18:55
	I'm a bit confused by how this model works or perhaps I'm just holding it wrong	18:56
	lets say I rebase off staging before merging or creating a pull request for that branch, I'd expect the only additional commits I see to be the two commits I originally added to the feature branch	18:56
	→ R2robot joined	18:56
elricsfate	Instead I see like 8-9 commits	18:56
	→ Ignacy joined	18:59
	← Newami left	18:59
elricsfate	So I have the feature/addcats branch based off master. I then need to merge that feature into develop so I rebase off develop and open a pull request to merge. I'd expect to only see the new changes on the top of that pull request. Instead I see a few. Is that normal with this way tang^?	19:00
	*a few extra based on the rebase	19:00
tang^	if those commits on master aren't in dev, then they'll show up as additional on dev	19:01
	though, given the model you shared, that shouldn't happen	19:01
	→ bn_work joined	19:01
	← _noblegas left	19:03
	← T_UNIX left	19:04
	← leprechau left	19:05
	ComradeCrocodill → Crocodillian	19:06
	→ hellauer joined	19:06
	← satifant left	19:07
	→ Vonor joined	19:08
Vonor	hi. I'm fiddling around for a bit now with git show, git log and git rev-parse. I want only the pretty format i specify from a certain file and only from the latest commit that file had. any idea?	19:10
osse	Vonor: git log --pretty=blabla -1 -- file	19:10
elricsfate	I see the issue now tang^	19:10
	I'm pushing the remote branch	19:11
	That's expecting that I won't do that	19:11
	Not sure how you'd handle that if you're also pushing the branch up to remote	19:11
	It only pushes up to remote when it's time to push into master branch	19:11
	→ Narrat joined	19:12
	← wildermind left	19:13
	← rnsanchez left	19:14
	← Inline left	19:14
	→ raffo joined	19:15
	→ synx joined	19:17
synx	Is there a way to get the commit at HEAD for a given remote repo without actually cloning the whole repo?	19:18
pandem	do you use github or something similar	19:19
	→ Inline joined	19:19
	← clime left	19:19
pandem	what do you mean by getting the commit?	19:19
synx	I want the hash.	19:19
	No, just some arbitrary remote, not necessarily github	19:19
elricsfate	Is it ever really suggested that multiple developers are working on the same branch or is that generally bad juju?	19:19
	(For example a feature or bug branch)	19:20
Vonor	osse, thanks. that is exactly what i was looking for	19:20
pandem	well, if you cant get it from the remote, then maybe shallow clone?	19:20
	→ satifant joined	19:21
	→ watabou_ joined	19:21
synx	oh, yea, shallow clone might work -- ill give that shot, thanks	19:22
	← rsrx left	19:22
	→ leprechau joined	19:26
	← g00s left	19:28
	← planetcall\|work left	19:28
	← watabou_ left	19:32
	→ clime joined	19:33
	← czart left	19:35
	← emsjessec left	19:35
nedbat	elricsfate: we sometimes have devs working together on a branch.	19:40
	elricsfate: you have to be careful about things like force-pushing though.	19:40
	← leb left	19:41
	← sgnls left	19:41
	← fphilipe left	19:41
	→ frikinz joined	19:43
	→ vnr joined	19:43
	← savolla left	19:43
	→ sgnls joined	19:43
	→ savolla joined	19:43
	→ kgrandly joined	19:46
	torontoyes → correct	19:46
	← savolla left	19:47
	← wyre_ left	19:47
	→ courrier joined	19:53
	→ g00s joined	19:53
	← gloomy left	19:54
	→ rnsanchez joined	19:55
	← OtakuSenpai left	19:55
	← kgrandly left	19:55
	← gxt left	19:56
	→ kgrandly joined	19:58
	→ jamiejackson joined	19:59
	← strk left	19:59
	→ freeman42y joined	20:00
	← freeman42x left	20:00
	varesa_ → varesa	20:01
	→ n3wborn joined	20:01
	→ nikivi joined	20:01
elricsfate	nedbat: Yep, the only way I could think of handling that would just be a force push	20:01
	Which would definitely require some care	20:01
nedbat	elricsfate: sorry, handling what?	20:02
	→ gloomy joined	20:04
	← Repox left	20:07
	→ fphilipe joined	20:08
	← boombatower left	20:11
	→ Mr__Anderson joined	20:11
	← fphilipe left	20:14
	→ guest3456 joined	20:14
guest3456	is it possible to delete multiple branches with a wildcard char	20:15
	like	20:15
	git branch -D release-v2*	20:15
	* or . neither worked	20:15
	← theoceaniscool left	20:16
elricsfate	nedbat: Using that particular model and collaborating on a branch	20:17
	← fattredd left	20:18
j416	guest3456: doubt	20:19
	→ theoceaniscool joined	20:19
	← leprechau left	20:20
canton7	guest3456, you can use git for-each-ref, and pipe that into git branch -d	20:20
	→ Enphuego joined	20:23
guest3456	too advanced for me	20:24
j416	guest3456: then copypaste the branchnames	20:25
	→ leprechau joined	20:25
	→ gxt joined	20:26
j416	or.. just delete the one by one	20:26
	them*	20:26
	guest3456: learning how pipes work isn't rocket science though; you should be able to learn it through a quick google.	20:27
	guest3456: you'll probably need xargs as well so look that up too.	20:27
	← yyy left	20:27
	← oatmealraisin left	20:29
	→ strk joined	20:32
strk	are notes not meant to be pushed to a shared repo ?	20:32
	or why does `git push` not push them ?	20:32
_ikke_	strk: You need to be explicit that you want to push them by adding a refspec that pushes the notes ref	20:33
	← fahadash left	20:34
strk	fetch = +refs/notes/commits/:refs/remotes/origin/notes/commits/	20:35
	like the above ?	20:35
	but there's already:	20:36
	fetch = +refs/heads/:refs/remotes/origin/	20:36
	so would that conflict if an head ends up being called "notes" ?	20:36
	→ fphilipe joined	20:36
strk	sorry if I'm being lame	20:36
	← theoceaniscool left	20:36
	← Ignacy left	20:37
_ikke_	strk: all 'normal' branches are always prefixed with refs/heads	20:38
	so refs/notes will never conflict with normal branches	20:38
	ah	20:39
	Yes, I would not create them as local tracking branches, that is bound to create issues	20:39
strk	sorry, I don't really undestand all these terms :(	20:41
	do the fetch line create local tracking branches ?	20:42
	← shabius left	20:42
_ikke_	refs/remotes/* is the namespace for remote tracking branches	20:42
	→ leb joined	20:44
strk	alright, I refrained from adding the fetch line	20:44
	→ blackandblue joined	20:44
strk	and just did a manual push of refs/notes/*	20:44
	doing so, resulted in pushing unexpected refs I found under there	20:45
	refs/notes/osgeo/devtools/discuss	20:45
	refs/notes/osgeo/devtools/reviews	20:45
	do those names ring any bell ?	20:45
	could it be some git-appraise thing ?	20:45
_ikke_	no	20:45
	might be	20:45
	→ greatgatsby joined	20:45
strk	git log shows me devtools/discuss contains 2 commits, both reported to be added via 'git notes append'	20:46
	(reported by commit log)	20:46
	→ jstein_ joined	20:47
strk	seems to be git-appraise though, as if I show those commits, they look like comments on changed lines	20:47
	jstein_ → jstein	20:47
	→ wootehfoot joined	20:48
	← mattcen left	20:48
	→ Newami joined	20:49
	← wootehfoot left	20:49
	→ mattcen joined	20:50
	← sgnls left	20:53
	→ gadget joined	20:55
	→ smitop joined	20:57
	← sozuba left	20:59
	← dege left	21:00
	→ dege joined	21:01
	← nikivi left	21:02
	→ shabius joined	21:03
strk	why do people not like git notes ?	21:04
	← satifant left	21:04
	← correct left	21:06
_ikke_	Not sure if that's the case, it's probably more that not many people have a usecase for them	21:06
	→ oatmealraisin joined	21:07
	← seaef-tnw left	21:08
	← azwieg103 left	21:09
	→ nikivi joined	21:09
	← scientes left	21:12
	→ scientes joined	21:12
	← scientes left	21:13
	← r1ch left	21:13
	← gadget left	21:13
nedbat	strk: do you like them?	21:14
	← fphilipe left	21:15
	← mattcen left	21:16
	← bolovanos left	21:17
	→ mattcen joined	21:19
	→ fphilipe joined	21:19
	→ satifant joined	21:19
strk	I like them, so far, but didn't use them much yet	21:21
	I did like the idea of adding a note to an object	21:21
	but didn't try adding _more_ notes to it	21:21
	I've read somewhere you can only have one per object ?	21:22
	← sbeyer left	21:22
	→ m0viefreak joined	21:24
	← howell left	21:25
	← jubal left	21:26
	← R2robot left	21:32
circuitbone	1 per hash?	21:34
	→ bashfulshell joined	21:35
	← Mr__Anderson left	21:36
	← Cabanossi left	21:36
	← kgrandly left	21:37
	→ kgrandly joined	21:37
	← jamiejackson left	21:38
Timvde	What's the use case for git notes?	21:38
	Additions to a commit message for a published commit?	21:38
_ikke_	Yes, any kind of note	21:39
strk	yes, that's my understanding	21:39
	like: "hey, my commit log was partial, here's an addendum"	21:39
	but "addendum" implies you can add them, a single note is indeed weird	21:39
	← gloomy left	21:44
	← pllong left	21:46
	→ CarlFK joined	21:47
	← greggerz left	21:48
	→ Cabanossi joined	21:48
	← leeN left	21:53
CarlFK	"error: you need to resolve your current index first" The changes in that branch have been accepted upstream, so I have 0 interest in it	21:55
	how do I resolve/stash/throw out whatever	21:55
	← blackandblue left	21:56
	→ CryptoDavid joined	21:57
	→ blackandblue joined	21:57
	→ Fernando-Basso joined	21:58
	← vnr left	22:01
	→ moldybits joined	22:02
	← fphilipe left	22:03
	→ boombatower joined	22:05
	→ fphilipe joined	22:09
	← dodobrain left	22:10
	→ fphilipe_ joined	22:14
	← fphilipe left	22:15
	→ justan0theruser joined	22:18
	← moldybits left	22:19
	← justanotheruser left	22:20
	← dege left	22:20
vishal	CarlFK: what command is producing that error?	22:21
	← linux_dr left	22:21
	→ jguddas-tr joined	22:21
	← jstein left	22:22
CarlFK	vishal: git checkout master	22:22
	← Narrat left	22:22
vishal	and do you have uncommitted changes either in index or the working tree?	22:23
CarlFK	but I just now gave up and added/commited	22:23
vishal	if you just want to throw away uncommitted changes you can go git reset --hard HEAD	22:23
	← arecaceae left	22:23
	← fphilipe_ left	22:23
vishal	and they will be irrecoverably gone	22:24
CarlFK	that s what I want - thanks	22:24
	→ arecaceae joined	22:24
	← jguddas-tr left	22:26
	← g00s left	22:26
	→ Atlenohen joined	22:26
	← oatmealraisin left	22:27
	→ ygivenx joined	22:32
	← Case_Of left	22:34
	justan0theruser → justanotheruser	22:35
CarlFK	grumble. git pull origin master -> error: Pull is not possible because you have unmerged files.	22:35
rafasc	CarlFK: after a reset --hard?	22:36
	→ Case_Of joined	22:36
	→ moldybits joined	22:37
CarlFK	rafasc: yes http://paste.ubuntu.com/p/qPPX5zn8tc/	22:37
	← shawn_dones left	22:37
rafasc	!eek	22:37
gitinfo	[!eekaconflict] Merge conflicts are a natural part of collaboration. When facing one, don't panic. Read "How to resolve conflicts" in man git-merge and http://git-scm.com/book/ch3-2.html#Basic-Merge-Conflicts then carefully go through the conflicts. Picking one side verbatim is not always the right choice! A nice video explaining merge conflicts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz7NuSCH6II	22:37
CarlFK	"picking one side verbatim is not always the right choice! " but in this case it is :p	22:39
	← plexigras left	22:39
vishal	CarlFK: do you have local commits that you want to keep? or do you just want to sync it up to be exactly the same as origin/master ?	22:39
CarlFK	just sync	22:39
rafasc	you can try passing -Xours or -Xtheirs	22:41
CarlFK	wut?	22:41
rafasc	to tell git to resolve conflicts using our side, or their side.	22:42
vishal	I don't think any resolution is needed if he just wants to throw away his changes	22:42
	just do git fetch origin; git reset --hard origin/master	22:43
	also beware of !pull4	22:43
gitinfo	[!fetchfour] Before 1.8.4, 'git fetch/pull' with a remote AND branch argument tended to be confusing because they didn't update the remote-tracking branch (the thing shown by 'git branch -r'). If you're stuck with an old version, it's usually better to pass no arguments, or at least only a remote. Workaround example to fetch only the 'foo' branch: git fetch origin refs/heads/foo:refs/remotes/origin/foo	22:43
rafasc	true, but if there are changes committed, usually there's a reason for it, and discarding them with reset --hard may not be intended.	22:43
vishal	true - that's why I asked that to make sure. always good to make a backup in any case :)	22:44
rafasc	it's unclear what "just sync" means.	22:44
	← n3wborn left	22:45
CarlFK	rm -rf; delete the repo; forkl clone would be acceptable	22:45
	but looks like that fetch reset did the trick	22:45
	→ libertyprime joined	22:45
rafasc	then reset --hard as vishal recommended.	22:45
vishal	!xkcd	22:46
	aww	22:46
	https://xkcd.com/1597/ should totally be a trigger :)	22:46
	← SkarmoutsosV left	22:47
rafasc	vishal: I'll put you in my git.txt ;)	22:48
Lordveda	Please what does this command mean: git rebase -i HEAD^^	22:48
	?	22:49
rafasc	basically means recommit the last two commits.	22:49
vishal	Lordveda: what are you trying to do? it is an interactive rebase	22:49
Lordveda	I am asking about the HEAD^^ part in particular	22:49
rafasc	man gitrevisions	22:49
gitinfo	the gitrevisions manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/gitrevisions.html	22:49
vishal	ah parent of parent of HEAD, also equivalent to HEAD~2	22:49
Lordveda	ok rafasc	22:49
vishal	rafasc: hah, we can be git.txt buddies	22:50
rafasc	^ is a parent selector. HEAD^1 means first parent of HEAD.	22:50
	if the number is missing, it defaults to 1.	22:50
	so HEAD^^ is equivalent of (HEAD^1)^1	22:51
	← leb left	22:51
rafasc	(parenthesis just to demonstrate the idea better.)	22:51
Lordveda	does HEAD^^ == HEAD^2?	22:52
	CarlFK crys. I just want to add a few chars and send off a MR.. http://paste.debian.net/1082725/	22:52
vishal	nope	22:52
Lordveda	vishal: why not?	22:52
vishal	Lordveda: HEAD^2 is second parent of head. HEAD^^ or HEAD~2 means _grand_parent of HEAD	22:53
rafasc	because ^ is a parent selector. ^2 would be the second parent. (only relevant on merge commits)	22:53
vishal	HEAD^2 only applies when talking about a merge commit	22:53
	← Xiti left	22:54
Lordveda	I solved the problem 15 on the website I provided the url earlier today by a different way	22:54
rafasc	the 14 can be solved without reset as well. ;)	22:55
Lordveda	The problem told about having 2 consecutive commits for a single file	22:55
vishal	CarlFK: you must have changes to the carlfk-sals remote that you resetted	22:55
CarlFK	ah right.	22:56
rafasc	like I mentioned: git rm --cached file 2; git commit --amend; git add file 2; git commit;	22:56
	← mikecmpbll left	22:56
vishal	if you don't care about rewriting the history on that remote/branch, you can use push --force	22:56
	→ fphilipe_ joined	22:56
Lordveda	rafasc: I am not very affluent with git, I am practicing	22:56
rafasc	Lordveda: you're already on the right path.	22:57
	Lordveda: most of the time here are multiple ways to accomplish the same thing.	22:57
Lordveda	problem 15 on the web site which requested reverting two consecutive to one commit	22:58
	I solved it by reverting the most recent commit and amended the change to its parent	22:59
rafasc	Lordveda: wasn't this you: https://gitexercises.fracz.com/committer/49185e38fa67a83a36e0e5d65944605e2d32e771	22:59
	→ Xiti joined	22:59
Lordveda	on the site they used rebase --interactive	22:59
	rafasc: Yes this is me	23:00
	check problem 15 solution	23:00
	they used rebase -i HEAD^^	23:01
	→ thiago_ joined	23:01
Lordveda	I did reset HEAD~1 then did git add file.txt and then git commit --amend	23:01
	I am just wondering why my solution yielded the same result as the author of the exercise, can anyone explain plz?	23:02
vishal	Lordveda: rebase -i means "go back in time X commits, and redo them, while also potentially making some changes". You also did the same thing, except going back in time manually, using reset, and then making changes using your commit --amend	23:04
	rebase -i is the generalized way to solve that sort of a problem	23:05
	← dartmouthed left	23:05
vishal	rebase -i will also remember and replay the commits that come afterwards - in your reset case, you'd have to add and commit those files again by hand	23:06
Lordveda	So my solution was a beginner's solution :)	23:06
vishal	if you were going back in time by only 1-2 commits, reset is acceptable. But try doing more than that and reset quickly becomes unmanageable	23:06
	sort of, yeah	23:07
	accomplished the same goal, but may not scale in more real-world scenarios	23:07
Lordveda	Is the -i option equivalent to the --interactive option?	23:08
	← cdown left	23:08
vishal	yes -i is just the short version	23:08
	(of the option that is - they are exactly the same)	23:09
	→ fstd_ joined	23:10
	→ weird_error joined	23:11
rafasc	Lordveda: git <cmd> --help; should open manual pages where all options are described.	23:11
	with a bit of regex, you can find options very quickly.	23:13
	example: /^\s+-i	23:13
	← fstd left	23:14
	fstd_ → fstd	23:14
	→ RoriconKnight joined	23:14
	← weird_error left	23:17
	→ weird_error joined	23:21
	← weird_error left	23:21
	→ hofmann3900 joined	23:22
	← mat001 left	23:24
	← Phylock left	23:25
	→ mat001 joined	23:26
	← mat001 left	23:26
	← courrier left	23:28
	← tang^ left	23:29
	→ ferdna joined	23:29
	← fphilipe_ left	23:31
	← justanotheruser left	23:32
	← freeman42y left	23:34
Lordveda	regexes are like immense puzzles to me rafasc	23:35
rafasc	in less: / starts a search; ^ means start of line; \s+ means one or more spaces.	23:36
	← khisanth_ left	23:36
	← duderonomy left	23:36
rafasc	if you did /-i or /--interactive you would get there as well.	23:37
	but you would need to press p or n (previous/next) a bunch of times to get to the relevant part.	23:37
	→ mat001 joined	23:37
	→ fphilipe_ joined	23:37
	← mat001 left	23:37
	→ jubal joined	23:38
rafasc	learning how to browse the documentation effectively is a good portion of becoming good at git.	23:38
Lordveda	actually I do searches into man pages very frequently	23:38
	→ courrier joined	23:38
	→ oatmealraisin joined	23:39
rafasc	ctrl+f on a browser also works. https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase	23:39
Lordveda	in man pages?	23:40
rafasc	Lordveda: git help rebase -w;	23:40
	(depends if your distro bundles html documentation)	23:40
Lordveda	I view the help in terminal rafasc	23:41
	plus I didn't find the docs available	23:42
rafasc	then the regex methods I mentioned should work if your pager is less.	23:42
	→ mat001 joined	23:42
	← fphilipe_ left	23:42
	→ watabou_ joined	23:44
rafasc	also: man -Hgoogle-chrome git rebase;	23:44
	the result of git help --web is prettied though.	23:44
	But I never use that, I just browse the man pages themselves.	23:45
Lordveda	rafasc: D'accord	23:45
	→ edwardly joined	23:46
	→ khisanth_ joined	23:50
	← greatgatsby left	23:52
	← bluezone left	23:52
	← alyptik left	23:53
	← magic_ninja left	23:56
	← CodeSlingerPaul left	23:59
	→ Bobdude joined	23:59
	← eckon left	23:59
	← Newami left	23:59

Logs Search ←Prev date Next date→

Channels Documentation