IRCloggy #git 2019-11-21

Provider of IRC logs since 2005.

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

	2019-11-21
	→ fphilipe joined	00:00
	← uniquerockrz left	00:01
	→ khisanth__ joined	00:01
	← fphilipe left	00:05
	→ uniquerockrz joined	00:10
	→ ExeciN joined	00:11
	← bvdw left	00:11
	→ Brainium joined	00:11
	→ bvdw joined	00:12
jayjo	I have a branch that is 10 commits ahead of master and 275 commits behind. I'm looking at merge vs rebase here. When I try to merge master into my feature branch, to get my feature branch caught up to the current master, this requires a commit that will change every file changed in those 275 commits. (Am I right on this so far?) Rebase will place the 10 commits after the 275 by rewriting the feature branch's	00:12
	git history. Is that right?	00:12
	Should rebase be used if master changes rapidly? And merge otherwise? Or is there a better rule?	00:13
	← cliluw left	00:15
	← xcm left	00:21
	→ xcm joined	00:23
	← monr0e left	00:26
	← uniquerockrz left	00:26
	justan0theruser → justanotheruser	00:28
	→ dilfridge joined	00:29
	→ jstimm joined	00:30
	→ uniquerockrz joined	00:31
	← leeN left	00:32
	← n3wborn left	00:34
	→ cliluw joined	00:34
	→ Stoot joined	00:34
	← ExeciN left	00:35
caveman	if git repo rebased, how should normal devs sync the rebase? should they just re-clone?	00:44
	← DIDAVISION left	00:49
	← uniquerockrz left	00:51
	→ akemhp joined	00:52
	→ altendky joined	00:53
	← xcm left	00:57
	→ xcm joined	00:58
	→ uniquerockrz joined	01:00
	← mat001_ left	01:04
	← yawkat left	01:04
	← royal_screwup21 left	01:05
	→ yawkat joined	01:07
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	01:10
	← royal_screwup21 left	01:11
	← yawkat left	01:11
	ChanServ set mode: +o	01:12
	← uniquerockrz left	01:12
	Eugene changed the topic to: Welcome to #git \| First visit? https://gitirc.eu \| Current stable version: 2.24.0 \| Getting "cannot send to channel"? /msg gitinfo .voice \| This channel is logged: https://gitirc.eu/log \| Now with more indirect cycling giraffes!	01:12
	Eugene kicked Eugene (de-op)	01:12
	→ Eugene joined	01:12
	→ orbyt_ joined	01:12
	← xcm left	01:15
	→ xcm joined	01:16
	← m0viefreak left	01:23
	→ uniquerockrz joined	01:23
	→ bambanx joined	01:24
	→ eamanu314 joined	01:25
	→ yawkat joined	01:27
jayjo	caveman: https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/merging-vs-rebasing#the-golden-rule-of-rebasing I think it should all work as normal as long as you're not rebasing master branches	01:28
	← boombatower left	01:29
	→ thebope joined	01:30
jayjo	just happen to be studying the same thing you're looking into. Not an expert	01:30
	← zettelding left	01:32
	← m1dnight_ left	01:32
	← mowcat left	01:32
	→ m1dnight_ joined	01:32
	← uniquerockrz left	01:34
	← thebope left	01:37
	← bambanx left	01:39
	→ uniquerockrz joined	01:40
	→ thebope joined	01:40
	→ deadlysin joined	01:41
Dirak	git merge master doesn't matter though when you squash and merge to master	01:45
	← orbyt_ left	01:46
	→ Goplat joined	01:47
	→ iam730 joined	01:51
	→ Xiti joined	01:53
	← xcm left	01:54
	→ xcm joined	01:55
	← jstimm left	01:56
	← Sasazuka left	01:59
	← localhorse left	02:00
	← xcm left	02:03
	→ mat001 joined	02:03
	→ soju joined	02:04
	→ zettelding joined	02:08
	← eamanu314 left	02:09
	→ xcm joined	02:11
	← akemhp left	02:13
	← niki left	02:17
	→ niki joined	02:18
	← KnoP left	02:19
	← mat001 left	02:20
	← uniquerockrz left	02:22
	→ omnireq joined	02:22
	← xcm left	02:24
	→ xcm joined	02:25
	← thebope left	02:26
	→ thebope joined	02:27
	← thebope left	02:28
	→ thebope joined	02:28
	→ uniquerockrz joined	02:31
	← josvuk left	02:32
jayjo	Dirak: rebase + squash and merge to master should be the same as just merging to master, right?	02:33
	rebase just translates all the commits, squash puts them into one. That should be the same thing as merging, right?	02:35
	except the merge will retain the actual commits on the branch, where the rebase + squash will just have one commit	02:36
	→ raymond joined	02:38
	← Dirak left	02:41
	← xcm left	02:43
	→ xcm joined	02:43
	← F0rTex left	02:44
	→ F0rTex joined	02:45
	← Atlenohen left	02:48
	← uniquerockrz left	02:48
	← vicfred left	02:52
	→ nuc joined	02:53
	→ vdamewood joined	02:56
	← crose left	02:56
	→ uniquerockrz joined	02:57
	← altendky left	03:03
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	03:03
	← Brainium left	03:05
	← salamanderrake left	03:06
	→ g00s joined	03:10
	← uniquerockrz left	03:12
	→ snackoverflow joined	03:13
snackoverflow	how can i merge a pull request from the project I forked	03:13
	→ Dirak joined	03:13
	→ Wryhder joined	03:17
	← Lucas_Gray left	03:19
	Wryhder → Lucas_Gray	03:19
	→ uniquerockrz joined	03:19
	← omnireq left	03:19
jayjo	snackoverflow: you want to put your changes in the project you forked back into the orignal project?	03:19
snackoverflow	no	03:20
	jayjo: there are new pull requests in the original project. i want to merge those pull requests into my fork	03:20
	← lagothrix left	03:20
	→ lagothrix joined	03:20
jayjo	I think you have two options. You can change all the files in your current branch (or current fork) with a merge operation. That will change all the files that have been modified in one commit that pulls your projects into line. Or you can rebase, which keeps your commits in tact, and places all of the masters commits behind yours on your current branch. This is a good resource:	03:22
	https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/merging-vs-rebasing	03:22
	← Cabanossi left	03:22
	→ orbyt_ joined	03:23
vdamewood	snackoverflow: One option is to add the third developer's repo as a remote, fetch from it, then merge the branch on the PR into a local branch.	03:23
	← zettelding left	03:24
jayjo	vdamewood: that would still end in a new commit on the branch, wouldn't it?	03:24
snackoverflow	vdamewood: would that be, git remote add newbranch [branch url] , then git fetch, then what?	03:24
	→ Cabanossi joined	03:24
snackoverflow	git merge?	03:24
vdamewood	jayjo: snackoverflow didn't specify that that was undesirable.	03:25
snackoverflow	yea new commits are fine	03:25
	← z\|bandito left	03:26
snackoverflow	jayjo: can you please answer my new question	03:26
vdamewood	jayjo: You don't add remote branches, you add remote repositories, and the remote repositories have branches. So, you would git remote add <remote name> <repo URL>.	03:27
	oops, sorry. snackoverflow ^	03:28
snackoverflow	oh i meant [repo url]	03:29
vdamewood	So, yeah.	03:29
snackoverflow	i had more questions	03:29
	git fetch then git merge?	03:29
	git fetch [branchname]?	03:29
	vdamewood: hello?	03:30
	→ mgedmin joined	03:31
vdamewood	snackoverflow: Yes, you can do it that. [branchname] is optional. You'll fetch every branch and tag if you leave it off.	03:31
	s/it that/it that way/	03:31
snackoverflow	vdamewood: "already up to date"	03:32
	← BonusPlay left	03:32
snackoverflow	?	03:32
	→ BonusPlay joined	03:32
snackoverflow	i did git remote add reponame, git fetch, git merge, and got "already up to date"	03:32
	vdamewood: ^	03:32
vdamewood	did you do 'git merge' or 'git merge <something here>'?	03:33
snackoverflow	just git merge	03:33
	i tried again and did git fetch [name] and i got a different response	03:33
vdamewood	That merges whatever's in the branch that the local branch is tracking. you need to specify something like git merge remote-repo/branch-name.	03:33
snackoverflow	remote: Enumerating objects: 31, done.	03:33
	remote: Counting objects: 100% (31/31), done.	03:33
	remote: Compressing objects: 100% (7/7), done.	03:33
	remote: Total 25 (delta 18), reused 25 (delta 18), pack-reused 0	03:33
	Unpacking objects: 100% (25/25), done.	03:33
	From https://github.com/kevinclark/deepsteg	03:33
	* [new branch] master -> kc/master	03:33
	looks like it did absolutely nothing	03:34
vdamewood	Oh yeah, and when fetching you need to specify either the remote repo, or --all.	03:34
	In most cases there's a default that git will select when you take data from somewhere. For example, if you do a simple git clone, it sets up an 'origin' remote, and that remote is set as your default remote to fetch from.	03:35
	... in the case of branches, they can have remote branches they track, so when you get a git merge or git pull, they automatically select that particular remote branch.	03:36
	s/you get a/you do a/	03:36
snackoverflow	i got it to perform the desired behavior	03:36
	→ shan joined	03:37
vdamewood	Yay!	03:37
	← Hello71 left	03:38
	→ beastDiv_ joined	03:39
	→ altendky joined	03:41
	→ salamanderrake joined	03:43
	→ Hello71 joined	03:43
	→ glosoli joined	03:47
	← neoncontrails left	03:54
	← uniquerockrz left	04:02
	→ duderonomy joined	04:02
	→ rustyshackleford joined	04:05
	→ uniquerockrz joined	04:09
	→ dartmouthed joined	04:18
	← glosoli left	04:19
	← dmc left	04:19
	← uniquerockrz left	04:24
	→ vicfred joined	04:26
	→ uniquerockrz joined	04:29
	← greatgatsby left	04:29
	→ greatgatsby joined	04:30
	← vicfred left	04:32
	← snackoverflow left	04:33
	→ dmc joined	04:35
	← orbyt_ left	04:38
	← uniquerockrz left	04:45
	← deadlysin left	04:46
	← comptroller left	04:49
	→ uniquerockrz joined	04:51
	← cthulchu left	04:52
	← fxrs left	04:53
	→ macaronus joined	04:54
	→ fxrs joined	04:56
	→ comptroller joined	04:59
	→ pks_ joined	05:01
	← pks left	05:03
	pks_ → pks	05:03
	→ errr joined	05:06
	← uniquerockrz left	05:09
	← niki left	05:12
	← zlogan left	05:13
	← cbreak left	05:14
	→ cbreak joined	05:16
	← Cabanossi left	05:21
	← Lucas_Gray left	05:22
	→ uniquerockrz joined	05:23
	→ BeerLover joined	05:26
	→ MoziM joined	05:26
	← rardiol left	05:27
	← donofrio left	05:31
	← uniquerockrz left	05:31
	→ Cabanossi joined	05:33
	← justanotheruser left	05:33
	→ fflam joined	05:35
	→ uniquerockrz joined	05:37
	← BeerLover left	05:42
	← vdamewood left	05:44
	← beastDiv_ left	05:48
	→ mat001 joined	05:49
	→ Nazral joined	05:51
Nazral	Hi	05:51
	I noticed that when I use rebase and rewrite a commit, the id changes, so I am wondering if the original version of the commit is saved somewhere ?	05:54
	← uniquerockrz left	05:57
	→ Forkk joined	05:59
	→ justanotheruser joined	06:00
	← altendky left	06:01
	← ferdna left	06:04
	→ uniquerockrz joined	06:04
	→ podlech joined	06:05
	→ glosoli joined	06:09
rjstone	Anyone familiar with github actions?	06:11
	I'm trying to use one of the webhook environment variable things and it isn't working	06:11
	because they don't provide examples	06:11
	← bvdw left	06:11
rjstone	I'm trying to do something like this artifact\papyrus-lang-test-${{ github.event.push.created_at }}.vsix	06:11
	but github.event.created_at and github.event.push.created_at don't work	06:12
	docs are unclear and don't make sense	06:12
	→ bvdw joined	06:12
	→ fphilipe joined	06:13
	← kleisli left	06:13
	← podlech left	06:14
	← fphilipe left	06:18
	← thomasross left	06:19
rjstone	I think I finally figured it out. github.event.repository.pushed_at is what I needed	06:19
	← g00s left	06:21
	→ zlogan joined	06:21
	→ thomasross joined	06:22
	← salamanderrake left	06:23
	← uniquerockrz left	06:23
	→ takyashi joined	06:26
	← Raging_Hog left	06:28
	← thomasross left	06:29
	→ thomasross joined	06:30
	→ uniquerockrz joined	06:34
	← mat001 left	06:38
	→ thiago joined	06:39
	→ SwiftMatt joined	06:42
	← uniquerockrz left	06:44
	← thiago left	06:45
	→ Arguggi joined	06:47
	→ thiago joined	06:49
	→ fphilipe joined	06:50
	→ uniquerockrz joined	06:53
	← thiago left	06:54
	→ thiago joined	06:59
	← shan left	07:00
osse	Nazral: the original commit is still laying around on disk. git will remove it eventually	07:00
	← Inline left	07:02
	← uniquerockrz left	07:08
	→ uniquerockrz joined	07:13
	→ kleisli joined	07:14
	← thiago left	07:14
	← Goplat left	07:14
	→ lundman joined	07:17
lundman	Hello, quick question: is it possible to get git clone to stop when it encounters an error, and not do the cleanup deltree ?	07:18
	→ rfuentess joined	07:18
	→ Noti joined	07:19
	← kleisli left	07:20
	← SwiftMatt left	07:22
	← glosoli left	07:25
	→ dionysus69 joined	07:26
	→ SwiftMatt joined	07:26
	← takyashi left	07:27
	→ glosoli joined	07:28
	← SwiftMatt left	07:29
	← uniquerockrz left	07:30
	→ sauvin joined	07:30
skylite	ould someone explain to me a bit more clear why am I seeing the following message after a merge? branch ahead of 'origin/master' by 2 commits -- I am a bit confused about why it says two commits where it only is really just one commit	07:33
osse	git log origin/master..master	07:34
skylite	osse: what does this command show?	07:35
	→ uniquerockrz joined	07:35
osse	the two commits	07:35
skylite	ok and why does it show two instead of one	07:35
osse	I don't know	07:35
Moongoodboy	Hmm, I would've thought that showing the log would make it clear why there are two	07:36
osse	That's impossible for me to tell.	07:36
	Judging by your discussion with _ikke_ earlier I guess the other commit is a merge	07:36
	→ n3wborn joined	07:36
skylite	my understanding is that if I merge, one new commit will be created.	07:38
osse	my guess is you made one commit, then pulled because git told you to. that produced a merge commit. now you have two commits	07:38
skylite	I'll try that out	07:39
osse	Now I mean I guess that is what has happened	07:39
	*No	07:39
	But sure, try it out. But it depends on there being some new commit one the remote so that a merge is necessary	07:40
	← Heirlung left	07:40
skylite	no it still says ahead.. by 2 commits	07:41
osse	You misunderstood be	07:41
skylite	I fetched the other branch from master so the two branches are downloaded compleatly and then did the merge	07:41
osse	me	07:42
skylite	*from origin	07:42
	← clemons left	07:44
osse	Did you create one commit and then do a merge?	07:44
	Because that explains why there are two commits	07:45
skylite	yes I did create one commit before doing the merge	07:45
	let me test again	07:45
osse	Then that is the reason there are two commits	07:46
skylite	aha!	07:48
	but it's still strange because when I create the commit before the merge, I also pushed that commit to origin	07:48
osse	That sounds very unlikely	07:49
	it sounds like the push failed	07:49
	→ Heirlung joined	07:49
osse	The reason for a merge like is that the remote has commits you don't. And as it happens that is the same reason why a push might fail.	07:50
	→ Paradisee joined	07:51
	← lundman left	07:52
skylite	this is the scenario: A and B clones the same repo. A starts working on dev branch with one commit, B starts working on test branch with one commit. Both commits are pushed to origin. Then B merges test branch with dev branch. And the status after the merge is: "ahead.. by 2 commits"	07:53
	→ thiago joined	07:55
skylite	osse: what do you think?	07:55
osse	sounds correct	07:56
	← uniquerockrz left	07:56
skylite	and in this scenario why does it says 2 commits instead of one?	07:56
	→ SwiftMatt joined	07:57
osse	B made a commit and then made a merge commit	07:58
skylite	but the commit was pushed to origin before doing the merge commit O_O	07:59
	← causasui left	07:59
osse	ah missed that part	08:00
	→ SteffanW joined	08:00
	← to1ne left	08:01
osse	it could still say 2 commits because of the merge commit + the commit on the test branch	08:01
	← Noti left	08:01
osse	Actually, it could say ahead by any number of commits. depends on how many commits A made on the other branch	08:01
skylite	"because of the merge commit + the commit on the test branch" -> even when the commit on the test branch is already on origin? :O	08:02
	→ BeerLover joined	08:02
osse	yes	08:02
skylite	that sounds confusing :/	08:03
osse	what git status is comparing is the commits on B's local dev branch and the dev branch on origin	08:03
	Doesn't matter whether test is pushed to origin or not	08:03
	→ chele joined	08:04
	→ feriman joined	08:06
skylite	but if that's the case then when B fetches the dev branch compleatly, (i.e show-ref dev displays the same hash for local and origin) and THEN does the merge, it should not say "ahead.. by 2 commits" and yet it does	08:06
osse	Why not?	08:07
	B is merging in stuff that is not present on origin/dev	08:07
	← thiago left	08:08
skylite	so if after the merge B does a git push, is there going to be two new commits created or one?	08:10
	→ TomyWork joined	08:10
osse	the commits have already been created	08:10
	but they will be pushed, yes	08:10
	→ uniquerockrz joined	08:11
osse	http://sprunge.us/uhkoqN	08:13
	← SwiftMatt left	08:14
skylite	so its practically two commits but they will have the same hash on both branches?	08:14
osse	I don't understand the question	08:15
	Branches are intertwined and share commits	08:15
	it's like a web.	08:15
skylite	ok so actually on your link I do not se 2 new commits after the merge only one :/	08:18
	← uniquerockrz left	08:20
osse	In b	08:23
	In my graph there is an unknown number of new commits	08:24
	← ilmostro left	08:24
osse	skylite: https://imgur.com/a/zC5NX17	08:27
	→ uniquerockrz joined	08:27
osse	skylite: is if you start from the point that says "dev" and walk backwards all those in the green can be found along the way. Thus they are now part of the dev branch, in Git terms	08:28
	→ oxymoron93 joined	08:28
osse	Those count	08:28
skylite	aha!!!	08:29
	← fphilipe left	08:29
skylite	no	08:30
	I just modified the scenario so now B creates 6 new commits on the test branch. pushes those to origin, and THEN, after doing a merge, it still says "ahead.. by 2 commits" =( I would expect it says ahead by 7 commits right?	08:32
	→ makaveli7 joined	08:34
skylite	oh no its not the commits on the test branch, but the commits on the dev branch that count!	08:38
	I just did the same thing but the other way around and now it shows ahead of 7	08:38
	so the "extra" is from the branch I am merging into!	08:38
	wow I dont belive how many repos I had to create to understand this :D	08:39
	← uniquerockrz left	08:41
osse	Woohoo!	08:41
cdunklau	skylite: git is magic	08:42
	i've re-read swaths of the git book probably a dozen times, and every time without fail i learn something new	08:43
	and most times it's not the "hey neat i didn't know that", rather "my entire concept of how this works was wrong" mindblown	08:44
	← BeerLover left	08:44
osse	I had a git talk at work the other day and I literally showed them what a blob looks like, and what trees, commits and tags look like. And I illustrated the point by showing them show crappy python scripts I made to create blobs, trees and commits by hand.	08:45
	It worked wonders	08:45
	That there "from the bottom up" thing is true.	08:45
skylite	osse: I am sort of in the same situation I have to train developers in a company to use git	08:46
	→ fphilipe joined	08:46
skylite	I'm creating oneliner shellscripts to create different scenarios so I can explain things	08:46
cdunklau	skylite: just make sure you open with https://xkcd.com/1597/	08:46
skylite	one small extra for me to be scared: I have to do a pilot training first for all the seniors	08:47
cdunklau	skylite: what's the situation? "We're switching from SVN to git", or "We should probably start using version control"	08:47
	→ leeN joined	08:48
skylite	no they ARE using git but the juniors always mess things up and slow down the seniors	08:48
	and they don't have time to explain they just fix it for them	08:48
	→ uniquerockrz joined	08:48
cdunklau	that's sad	08:49
skylite	or maybe they dont understand it either just know how to fix it :)	08:49
cdunklau	lol	08:49
	→ BeerLover joined	08:51
skylite	either way im finally getting paid to learn git for a lifetime :D need to make the most of it	08:52
	→ ilmostro joined	08:57
	→ mikecmpbll joined	08:59
	← gxt left	09:02
	→ SwiftMatt joined	09:03
	← DarthRadar left	09:05
	← uniquerockrz left	09:06
	← SwiftMatt left	09:08
	→ bladane joined	09:12
osse	skylite: https://github.com/Osse/git-talk-impls/tree/master/py here are the scripts I used	09:12
	it's worth understanding them	09:12
	I suck at python so in that sense they are probably bad.	09:12
	→ uniquerockrz joined	09:14
	← duderonomy left	09:15
osse	I should do an asciinema thing where I show what I did	09:15
	← uniquerockrz left	09:15
	← squirrel left	09:17
	→ T_UNIX joined	09:18
	→ planetcall\|work joined	09:19
	→ roxlu joined	09:19
roxlu	hi	09:19
	← perrier-jouet left	09:20
roxlu	i've got a patch that I'm applying using `git patch`. when the patch has been applied I get an error that the patch doesn't apply. is there a way to silence this error? I'm using cmake with an External Project and the error from `git apply` prevents the External Project from building.	09:21
	→ khisanth_ joined	09:21
osse	roxlu: what do you want to do if the patch doesn't apply?	09:22
	→ uniquerockrz joined	09:23
osse	Also, what is the reason it doesn't apply when it in fact doesn't?	09:23
roxlu	osse: nothing I only notice that I get this error when the patch has been applied already	09:23
	→ perrier-jouet joined	09:23
osse	roxlu: aha	09:23
	roxlu: you can check whether a patch has been applied already by checking whether it is possible to apply it in reverse	09:23
roxlu	osse: hmm would that be possible in one command?	09:24
osse	For External Project the commands are run in a shell, right? If so you can simply do COMMAND "git apply ... \|\| true"	09:24
roxlu	osse: yeah, not sure if that would work on Windows/powershell	09:24
	← khisanth__ left	09:25
	→ takyashi joined	09:26
	← uniquerockrz left	09:28
	→ squirrel joined	09:28
osse	I think you should ask #cmake for how to do stuff conditionally	09:28
roxlu	osse: ok thanks	09:28
osse	what you can do as a workaround is to make the COMMAND be "cmake -P mypatchwrapper.cmke" and do the logic in there	09:29
	and that can call execute_process() and all those goodies	09:29
	← warthog9 left	09:29
	→ warthog9 joined	09:29
	→ mobidrop joined	09:30
	→ shady_traveller joined	09:32
osse	roxlu: oooh I have a wicked idea	09:32
	roxlu: you can follow all BLAH_COMMAND "foo" with additional COMMAND "bar"	09:32
	→ reprazent joined	09:32
osse	what if you simply add a command that does nothing? COMMAND "true"	09:32
	heh, that doesn't work in PS	09:33
roxlu	oh :$ hehe	09:33
osse	exit 0 does.	09:33
	→ uniquerockrz joined	09:33
osse	that even works in cmd.exe	09:33
	but my guess is that it won't help anyway. it will stop at the first failing command	09:33
roxlu	I'm trying with --reject now (but the project takes ages to compile before I can see if it worked)	09:34
osse	Also, you can add the patch step separately (and conditionally) with ExternalProject_AddStep() I guess	09:34
	anyway, git apply --check --reverse is an excellent way of checking whether a patch has already been applied.	09:35
	→ mixaz joined	09:35
roxlu	osse: yeah I was thinking about that ... but I also want to figure out why I have to deal with this in the first place; it feels like I'm doing something wrong as applying a patch shouldn't result in these issues	09:37
osse	That is also a question for #cmake, I think	09:38
	I can't find any way in the docs to ignore command errors	09:38
	The best would be to submit your patch upstream :D	09:39
skylite	osse: thanks I'll check that	09:43
roxlu	osse: hehe yeah :-) the peepz from this project seem to be a bit unresponsive	09:48
	← uniquerockrz left	09:53
	← cdown left	09:55
	→ uniquerockrz joined	09:58
	→ \|Ace\| joined	10:02
\|Ace\|	I need an opinion:	10:02
selckin	water is good for you	10:03
	← sunrunner20 left	10:03
	← takyashi left	10:03
\|Ace\|	A PhD student colleague is working on a project that we need. So I suggested we fork it and work on it so as to mitigate and minimise risks posing to his master repo and if everything is okay we can merge it once he is happy	10:03
	→ thiago_ joined	10:03
\|Ace\|	however this is his reply: This may sound like a detail to you, but in my eyes there is a big difference between a fork and a branch. A branch would be fine, but a fork is a great way to fork off with the source code and never give anything back. Put more politely, forking is divergent evolution, and branching is convergent evolution. I am only	10:04
	interested in the latter. I hope this comes down to a misunderstanding of fork/branch terminology, but if it is not then it is better we talk sooner rather than later.	10:04
	what do you think?	10:04
	← makaveli7 left	10:05
	← SteffanW left	10:06
	→ Noti joined	10:06
selckin	can see his point, "fork" is more like go play in your own sandbox, easy deleted with no trace, or when original authors no longer support it, a branch is more we're insterested in the work and want to easily see/follow it and intent to merge it	10:06
	but practical things like authentication/access to the repos can also play a role etc	10:06
\|Ace\|	For me it does not really matter either way, but I thought the correct softeng approach would be to fork it and go from there	10:07
selckin	all depends on the setup etc	10:08
\|Ace\|	setup as in?	10:08
selckin	politics & silly things like what you're using to host the repos	10:08
\|Ace\|	using gitlab	10:09
	→ gxt joined	10:10
selckin	well like you might not want to give him access to make changes on the master branch if its used in production and you don't really trust him since student etc, so then fork is a good reason, or you might have good security controls in place to restrict him to the branch etc, that all counts too	10:10
	→ mat001 joined	10:10
selckin	if they are unfamiliar with git, you risk them messing a lot of things up, and maybe need strict pull-request time policity, while in fork they cn just do whatever, and force push/rewirte hitory still its done etc	10:12
\|Ace\|	we are in the same org. if we fork it he will obviously have access to it, this was so to null out any chance of ruining his master code that he has been working on, and once he is happy with out development he can choose to merge it or not.	10:12
selckin	so its all a valid option, just depends on what you prefer	10:12
\|Ace\|	he is familiar with git, one in our team is not	10:12
	so there is no "correct" way of doing things?	10:12
	→ crose joined	10:12
selckin	not really	10:13
\|Ace\|	well in that case I don't really like his condescending tone >:(	10:14
selckin	people will religiously defend what they believe in best practice in CS, thats life	10:15
	→ Brainium joined	10:15
selckin	he want to work to visible to people interested in the original project, as a branch can be organicly found, and a fork thats harder, and if you chose not to merge it, can still be there for the futuree etc	10:16
	its not like he's wrong, but feel like the practical organisation things outweight any technical reason	10:16
	so there is no "right" awnser, without knowing the culture in your company/school/whatever	10:17
	also i'm just a random guy on irc :)	10:18
\|Ace\|	I need more opinions from random guys on irc	10:18
	← Dirak left	10:18
\|Ace\|	to build enough samples to make a conclusion :P	10:18
	→ Aquazi joined	10:18
	← uniquerockrz left	10:19
selckin	turn it around, if you intent to use his work, any reason you wouldn't want him to work on a branch?	10:20
	← mat001 left	10:21
	→ tango_ joined	10:21
	→ takyashi joined	10:21
selckin	(which usually resorts to security/acess control) which is where "fork" came from, github/gitlab, you don't have access to the original repo, but want to share your work under your own account in a fork	10:22
\|Ace\|	not really unlike him I am very flexible, if he wants to work on a branch that's fine by me	10:23
selckin	and then it comes back to practical things, maybe you want his to have his on issue list in gitlab to not polute the main repo or other things etc	10:24
	→ uniquerockrz joined	10:24
	→ Jackneill joined	10:28
\|Ace\|	he's overplaying it. It's a research code, so it's a mess already and he's literally the only developer/user until we came around.	10:28
	to give you an idea modules are named after shades of a colour instead of what they actually do	10:29
selckin	well PhD ppl usually are assholes more concerned with social status and faking it in my experience so that fits	10:30
	→ figuinhas joined	10:30
	← takyashi left	10:31
	← phanimahesh left	10:32
	→ stennowork joined	10:33
	→ DarthRadar joined	10:33
stennowork	good day, yesterday i read that you should not mix merging with rebasing. now, during `git pull --rebase` a merge conflict happened and was resolved, then the rebase was continued with `git rebase --continue`.	10:34
	the history of that branch looks just fine	10:34
	→ Dirak joined	10:34
selckin	that sounds correct	10:34
stennowork	can i now still rebase onto that branch without risking that my history will blow up at some point?	10:34
\|Ace\|	pretty much yes, even more so when they doing phd at oxbridge	10:34
stennowork	was that a 'merge' in that sense after all?	10:34
selckin	no was a rebase	10:35
stennowork	gotcha, great	10:35
	so all is still well in gitland	10:35
selckin	should be	10:35
	← kjartan_ left	10:36
	← Dirak left	10:39
	→ kjartan joined	10:41
	← thiago_ left	10:42
	← uniquerockrz left	10:44
	← \|Ace\| left	10:48
	← zlogan left	10:50
	→ zlogan joined	10:50
	→ enoq joined	10:51
	→ tonythomas joined	10:52
	→ uniquerockrz joined	10:53
	→ mobidrop_ joined	10:53
	← mobidrop left	10:57
	← RandomSerb left	11:00
	→ xnaas joined	11:02
	→ thiago joined	11:08
	← Stoot left	11:09
	← uniquerockrz left	11:10
	→ kleisli joined	11:13
	→ uniquerockrz joined	11:15
	← thiago left	11:23
	→ cdown joined	11:24
	→ takyashi joined	11:28
	→ akemhp joined	11:28
	← uniquerockrz left	11:34
	→ cYmen joined	11:41
cYmen	Hello! :) Does anybody have an idea how I might check if all local work has been pushed on some branch?	11:42
	Essentially to ensure that work has been backed up.	11:42
nedbat	cYmen: "git status" ?	11:42
_ikke_	git rev-list --count <branch>@{u}..<branch>	11:42
cYmen	nedbat: oh, right...I want to check from a script!	11:45
	→ uniquerockrz joined	11:45
cYmen	_ikke_: hm...and then iterate that for all branches?	11:46
osse	check what, precisely?	11:46
cYmen	I want to make sure that if this computer dies, I don't lose anything.	11:46
	So changes to files, untracked files, stashed commits, all of it....	11:47
osse	check that git ls-files --others --exclude-standard doesn't print any files, that git diff is empty and the think _ikke_ showed, for all local branches	11:47
_ikke_	cYmen: git branch -vv as well	11:49
cYmen	Alright, I guess I will have to set up some tests now.	11:51
	Thanks!	11:51
	← glosoli left	11:51
	→ agg joined	11:51
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	11:52
	→ Stoot joined	11:53
	→ localhorse joined	11:56
	→ glosoli joined	11:56
localhorse	j416: hey, i rebased that feature branch (that i was talking about yesterday) on master, but now i noticed i missed something in an earlier commit during the rebase. how can i change that past commit?	11:56
	i haven't pushed yet	11:57
	but rebase is complete	11:57
	can i just re-run rebase? or will i lose all the work i did during the rebase?	11:57
	← raven-au left	11:58
	→ raven-au joined	11:59
localhorse	git rebase -i HEAD~4 ?	12:00
Moongoodenby	localhorse: I think so. In any case, if you note the commit hash of the current HEAD, you can pretty much get your history back even if you mess something up	12:00
	← Lucas_Gray left	12:00
Moongoodenby	(yay git)	12:01
localhorse	Moongoodenby: you think so regarding 1 or 2) ?	12:01
	← uniquerockrz left	12:01
Moongoodenby	AIUI, if you rebase again now, you'll be starting from the current state, not the state before the rebase you already did.	12:01
	→ emsjessec joined	12:02
localhorse	2) worked	12:03
	thx	12:03
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	12:04
	← mixaz left	12:06
localhorse	Moongoodenby: how can i grep through my branch's history to see WHICH commits' diff contains a certain word?	12:07
	← cdown left	12:07
	→ eamanu314 joined	12:09
_ikke_	localhorse: git log -S 'word'	12:10
	→ uniquerockrz joined	12:10
	← bvdw left	12:11
localhorse	_ikke_: thx. how can i also see the diff, not just that commit?	12:12
	→ bvdw joined	12:12
localhorse	Moongoodenby: if i just run `git rebase -i` without `HEAD~4`, will it start from the point where my branch branched off of its parent?	12:12
_ikke_	localhorse: add -p (--patch)	12:13
localhorse	thx!	12:14
	→ monr0e joined	12:18
	→ rardiol joined	12:20
	← selckin left	12:23
	→ selckin joined	12:23
	← uniquerockrz left	12:25
	→ thiago joined	12:26
	→ CoolerX joined	12:27
CoolerX	hey	12:27
	I have multiple github accounts	12:27
	→ lucasb joined	12:27
CoolerX	currently I can only push to one of them	12:27
	the other one gives me a 403	12:27
	how do I add multiple accounts to git?	12:28
	→ salamanderrake joined	12:28
wyre	what would happen if I: 1. Make a fork for a particular project, 2. Create a branch to modify a specific file, 3. Do a PR to upstream project, PR is accepted and I also merge that new branch into the <main_branch>, 4. I make a `git pull --rebase upstream <main_branch>` ?	12:30
	there would be a kind of conflict when I do the `git pull --rebase ...`?	12:31
	→ uniquerockrz joined	12:32
	→ cdown joined	12:33
selckin	it will drop commits that are equal	12:34
	← takyashi left	12:36
	← BeerLover left	12:36
wyre	selckin, so ... there is not conflict, I guess :-)	12:37
	← bladane left	12:38
j416	localhorse: interactive rebase. !book	12:39
gitinfo	localhorse: 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	12:39
localhorse	thx	12:39
	i'll read it on my 5h train ride tomorrow	12:40
	→ donofrio joined	12:40
	← enoq left	12:40
	→ takyashi joined	12:40
	→ sQVe joined	12:44
	← Stoot left	12:46
	mobidrop_ → mobidrop	12:49
	← uniquerockrz left	12:51
	→ uniquerockrz joined	12:58
	← sQVe left	12:58
	← oxymoron93 left	13:01
	→ sQVe joined	13:02
	← glosoli left	13:03
	→ mowcat joined	13:04
	← sQVe left	13:05
	→ sQVe joined	13:05
	→ oxymoron93 joined	13:12
staafl__	So... what's the civilized way to move an LFS-tracked file back to regular tracking?	13:16
	Google suggests using filter-branch but I'm not interested in rewriting history	13:16
	← uniquerockrz left	13:18
	← adam_mc3 left	13:23
	← rwb left	13:25
	→ uniquerockrz joined	13:25
	→ igemnace joined	13:27
	eamanu314 → eamanu	13:30
	← Xiti left	13:30
	→ nius joined	13:34
	→ adam4 joined	13:35
	adam4 → adam_mc3	13:35
	→ interrobangd joined	13:35
	→ KnoP joined	13:36
	← adam_mc3 left	13:36
	→ Xiti joined	13:36
	→ tmager joined	13:36
	→ adam_ joined	13:37
	adam_ → adam_mc3	13:37
	← mobidrop left	13:38
	→ glosoli joined	13:38
	← akemhp left	13:39
CoolerX	hey	13:40
	anyone know how to add more accounts?	13:40
	→ berndj joined	13:40
stennowork	er what?	13:40
CoolerX	I tried doing git config --user.name "..."	13:40
	git config user.name "my name"	13:41
	git config user.email "my email"	13:41
	I am still getting 403 when I try to push	13:41
	← cd left	13:41
_ikke_	CoolerX: those have nothing to do with authentication against a third party git service	13:41
CoolerX	git push --local doesn't work either	13:42
	it says unrecognized option	13:42
	← uniquerockrz left	13:42
CoolerX	_ikke_, oh	13:42
	_ikke_, so it just for who commited?	13:42
	it only affects git commit ?	13:43
osse	yes	13:43
CoolerX	ok so how do I add more accounts so that git push will work?	13:43
	→ jbu joined	13:43
R2robot	push where?	13:45
	oh, i see way above	13:45
CoolerX	every article on this seems to assume I have ssh keys setup https://medium.com/@geeky_sh/manage-multiple-git-accounts-on-a-single-machine-d49d710ec229	13:45
	R2robot, to github	13:45
	I am just using https and logging in	13:46
	with username password	13:46
stennowork	you can configure users in your github...	13:46
CoolerX	stennowork, I am using the command line git	13:47
stennowork	git and github are essentially unrelated	13:47
CoolerX	ik	13:47
R2robot	#github	13:47
CoolerX	stennowork, I am using the command line git	13:47
stennowork	ok, because you mentioend something with accounts and github, which is unrelated to git itself	13:47
CoolerX	stennowork, it is not unrelated, git push is part of git	13:48
	jeez every single answer assumes ssh keys https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3860112/multiple-github-accounts-on-the-same-computer	13:49
osse	CoolerX: what are the URLs you're pushing to?	13:49
CoolerX	osse, https	13:49
osse	I know that part	13:49
R2robot	ssh > https :P	13:50
stennowork	CoolerX, i told you to add your ssh keys on github	13:50
osse	Usually you're prompted for a username and password	13:50
	are you not?	13:50
CoolerX	osse, https://github.com/foo/bar.git	13:50
R2robot	and do you have 2FA enabled? I think that causes a problem	13:50
CoolerX	osse, no I am not getting any such prompt	13:50
	osse, it prompted only a single time the very first time I used it several months ago	13:50
	R2robot, no	13:51
osse	Sounds like it's cached and it needs to be cleared	13:51
CoolerX	stennowork, I don't have any ssh keys	13:51
	stop assuming that	13:51
R2robot	lol	13:51
	make 'em	13:51
osse	CoolerX: what does 'git config credential.helper' say?	13:52
CoolerX	R2robot, that is inconvenient since I would have to carry my ssh keys with me everywhere in a usb drive or something	13:53
R2robot	hooo'k	13:53
CoolerX	using a username password I can just login from anywhere	13:53
R2robot	your edge case is way too far off for me	13:53
CoolerX	R2robot, what? not carry a usb drive full of ssh keys with you everywhere you go? you call that an edge case?	13:54
	that is the default case	13:54
R2robot	#github	13:54
CoolerX	osse, it says manager	13:54
	what does that mean?	13:54
	→ beastDiv_ joined	13:55
osse	CoolerX: it means git is configured to store usernames and passwords somehow (i'm not sure of the details)	13:55
	CoolerX: can you re-run with --show.origin	13:55
	I mean --show-origin	13:55
	→ uniquerockrz joined	13:56
CoolerX	osse, that gave no output	13:57
	oh wait what?	13:57
	now when I do git config credential.helper it prints --show-origin	13:57
osse	heh, at least that's not a valid manager	13:58
	you added the --show-origin in the wrong place (because I didn't tell you where to put it)	13:58
	so you changed the value from "manager" to "--show-origin"	13:58
CoolerX	osse, oh	13:58
osse	ok, brute force approach:	13:59
	git config --list --show-origin \| grep credential	13:59
CoolerX	there is no grep, I am on windows 10	13:59
osse	use findstr	14:00
CoolerX	file:C:/Program Files/Git/mingw64/etc/gitconfig credential.helper=manager	14:00
	file:.git/config credential.helper=--show-origin	14:00
osse	ok, run: git help credential-manager	14:01
	That thing there remembers your username(s) and password(s) and apprently does it too well	14:02
	→ clime joined	14:02
CoolerX	osse, https://i.imgur.com/ds2BkpQ.png	14:03
osse	fuckit	14:03
CoolerX	maybe I need to change that setting back to "manager"	14:03
	the one I accidentally changed to "--show-origin"	14:04
osse	You can try removing it first	14:04
	git config --unset credential.helper && git config --unset --system credential.helper	14:04
CoolerX	yeah && doesn't work in powershell for windows 10 The token '&&' is not a valid statement separator in this version.	14:05
osse	ok, run them sepratately then	14:05
	← Lucas_Gray left	14:06
	← uniquerockrz left	14:06
	← oxymoron93 left	14:06
CoolerX	error: could not lock config file C:/Program Files/Git/mingw64/etc/gitconfig: Permission denied	14:06
	I guess some program is using it?	14:07
osse	probably need admin access	14:07
	Remove (or comment with ;) that line from the file. I don't really care how you do it.	14:07
	git config is basically just a file editor	14:08
CoolerX	osse, I ran it in a powershell opened as administrator	14:09
osse	ok. now try to git fetch or push or whatever	14:09
CoolerX	alright it worked, now it prompts for username and password	14:10
	thanks for the help	14:10
osse	CoolerX: as for how to store separate usernames and password for separate URLs, I don't know.	14:11
	Maybe this manager thing can do it.	14:11
	→ m0viefreak joined	14:11
	→ uniquerockrz joined	14:11
osse	AFAIK that is not distributed with git, so it's a third party thing	14:11
	you can see if you have a git-credential-manager.exe somewhere on your system	14:12
CoolerX	osse, I installed git from here https://git-scm.com/	14:12
	I didn't install any separate manager	14:12
osse	That configuration must have come from somewhere... Visual Studio maybe?	14:13
CoolerX	osse, I am using visual studio code for development	14:13
	but I am executing git commands from the command line	14:14
osse	This thing exists: https://github.com/microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-for-Windows	14:14
	check if you have that exe file somewhere	14:14
	← rardiol left	14:14
osse	is sourcetree installed?	14:14
	that thing fucks everything up	14:14
	← saint_ left	14:14
CoolerX	no	14:14
osse	I don't know then	14:15
CoolerX	I think git-scm installed the manager	14:15
	I searched for git-credential-manager.exe nothing showed up	14:16
	it might not be indexed, windows 10 needs a quick file search like Linux has	14:16
	← takyashi left	14:16
stennowork	or even spotlight	14:17
jast	windows does have a file indexer, it's not enabled for the whole disk by default as I recall	14:17
stennowork	amazing that spotlight from 2006 is still superior to windows search in 2019	14:17
osse	CoolerX: I can't recommend this tool enough: https://www.voidtools.com/	14:17
	CoolerX: it's pretty amazing	14:17
	It's the most instant file search I've ever come across	14:18
_ikke_	ah, windows :0	14:18
	:)	14:18
osse	I wish that existed for Linux	14:18
stennowork	locate ?	14:18
	is what i use for linux	14:18
jast	now add Everything to Keypirinha and fun ensues	14:18
	locate doesn't do fuzzy search IIRC	14:19
	okay, neither does Everything	14:19
stennowork	locate is near instant	14:19
jast	on Linux I use fzf for fuzzy matching, but it needs some kind of data provider to work with	14:19
	yeah, I know, I didn't say it wasn't	14:19
osse	stennowork: doesn't that have to update a db? what if you create a file and then immediately try to locate it?	14:19
stennowork	of course still inferior to spotlight because spotlight does fulltext search in files too	14:19
jast	yeah, locate depends on updatedb	14:20
stennowork	osse, correct, you have to call updatedb	14:20
jast	usually run as a cronjob	14:20
osse	jast: yeah Everything can do regex and you can set up filters and whatnot, but it's not fuzzy in the fzf/fzy sense	14:20
	that would be awesome	14:21
jast	tbh I don't need fuzzy search but it's awfully convenient	14:21
osse	But everything has a CLI version so it's doable :p	14:21
	→ oxymoron93 joined	14:21
jast	I don't think the fzf approach could scale to an entire disk though	14:21
	you'd probably need a reverse index of characters and maybe sparse n-grams	14:21
	← mowcat left	14:22
jast	this kind of optimization problem is really interesting to me but I don't have time to actually tinker with it :)	14:22
CoolerX	osse, oh that is nice	14:23
	it found it straight away	14:23
osse	:D	14:23
CoolerX	NOICE	14:23
osse	Where was it?	14:24
stennowork	i assume that finding stuff really fast depends on a lot of things, including the filesystem itself	14:24
CoolerX	in C:\Program Files\Git\mingw64\libexec\git-core	14:24
jast	check out Keypirinha for accessing Everything and a whole bunch of other things. it's much less lightweight than Everything and mostly for power users, but it can do a lot of fun things	14:24
	oh yeah, I could have told you that's where these things are :)	14:24
	joined in too late	14:24
stennowork	and the super tight integration of osx to its hardware helps	14:24
osse	CoolerX: so it is from Git itself	14:24
	huh	14:24
jast	you can do real-time indexing on any platform	14:24
osse	Why don't I have it? :O	14:25
jast	all you need is a filesystem events API	14:25
osse	that's what Everything uses, afaik	14:25
jast	e.g. inotify on linux and a whole plethora of APIs on windows	14:25
CoolerX	osse, yeah I think git-scm installed it	14:25
	→ sgn joined	14:25
stennowork	i see	14:25
	→ akemhp joined	14:25
osse	CoolerX: weird that it doesn't have any docs then	14:25
	← sQVe left	14:25
osse	jast: have you use git-credential-manager ?	14:25
jast	and how fast initial indexing works depends mostly on the filesystem and how good FS buffering is in the OS	14:25
stennowork	so is there a spotlight for linux?	14:26
	i.e. instant fulltext search	14:26
	over all filse	14:26
jast	osse: nope	14:26
CoolerX	osse, https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Credential-Storage	14:26
	If you’re using Windows, you can install a helper called “Git Credential Manager for Windows.” This is similar to the “osxkeychain” helper described above, but uses the Windows Credential Store to control sensitive information. It can be found at https://github.com/Microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-for-Windows.	14:27
stennowork	apparently something called 'albert'	14:27
osse	CoolerX: Ohhh so it IS that ting	14:27
	thing	14:27
	Surely there must be a way to store multiple usernames and passwords	14:27
CoolerX	I think maybe the installer had that as an optional component	14:27
	https://github.com/Microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-for-Windows#how-to-use	14:28
	How to use	14:28
	You don't. It magically works when credentials are needed. For example, when pushing to Azure DevOps, it automatically opens a window and initializes an oauth2 flow to get your token.	14:28
	← uniquerockrz left	14:28
CoolerX	"magic"	14:28
	doesn't seem to have a way to add more accounts https://github.com/microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-for-Windows/blob/master/Docs/CredentialManager.md#usage	14:31
jast	that's weird, normally it should prompt automatically	14:33
CoolerX	https://github.com/microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-for-Windows/issues/749	14:33
jast	or do you have multiple github accounts you want to use?	14:33
	oh, I see	14:34
	→ omnireq joined	14:34
jast	yeah, I'd try username prefixes in the URLs	14:34
	https://user1@github.com/... https://user2@github.com/...	14:34
	← thiago left	14:35
jast	though you probably only need the prefix for those repos where you don't want to use your "main" account (the one already known to the credential manager)	14:36
CoolerX	jast, that still requires you to input the password	14:36
jast	it shouldn't, more than once	14:36
	does it work for you with a single github account?	14:36
CoolerX	well according to the OP it does ask each time for the password https://github.com/microsoft/Git-Credential-Manager-for-Windows/issues/749#issuecomment-422274124	14:37
	→ uniquerockrz joined	14:37
jast	hmm, seems this case isn't covered well	14:39
	using that 'httpPath' option seems like an annoying way to work around it	14:39
	*useHttpPath	14:40
Bombe	I solved a similar problem with bitbucket by defining a custom host and username in my .ssh/config and then using git’s url.<custom url>.insteadOf=<normal url>.	14:40
osse	Maybe some of the other credential managers are better in this case	14:40
jast	the official helpers are 'cache' (RAM) and 'store' (plain text storage on filesystem, urg)	14:41
	the windows mechanism used by the credential manager at least encrypts it with your account key	14:42
	(windows account)	14:42
osse	But they will still be better for our dude if they allow multiple accounts :p	14:43
jast	who stated both in the github ticket and in the stackoverflow question that the solution should be reasonably secure	14:45
osse	I think maybe we're talking about different dudes	14:47
CoolerX	well any credential manger that works like magic is probably not worth the trouble	14:49
	I prefer it be a little bit more transparent to avoid confusion	14:49
	thanks for the help	14:49
	← CoolerX left	14:49
	← Sigma left	14:51
	← uniquerockrz left	14:52
	← akemhp left	14:52
	→ deadlysin joined	14:54
jast	oh yeah	14:54
	my bad :)	14:54
	though I don't think he understood how non-magical the credential manager is for the most part :)	14:54
	→ saint_ joined	14:56
	→ altendky joined	14:56
	→ hussam joined	14:56
	→ ExeciN joined	14:57
	→ uniquerockrz joined	14:59
	← macaronus left	15:00
	← glosoli left	15:02
	→ Sigma joined	15:02
	→ Inline joined	15:05
	← leeN left	15:07
	→ rafasc joined	15:09
	→ akemhp joined	15:14
	← uniquerockrz left	15:16
	← TomyWork left	15:17
	→ phanimahesh joined	15:18
	gitinfo set mode: +v	15:18
	→ duderonomy joined	15:19
	→ rardiol joined	15:19
	→ uniquerockrz joined	15:21
	← beastDiv_ left	15:21
	← rardiol left	15:25
	← yawkat left	15:25
	→ rardiol joined	15:26
	→ greggerz joined	15:27
	← ExeciN left	15:27
	← greggerz left	15:28
	→ greggerz joined	15:29
	← akemhp left	15:29
	→ rardiol_ joined	15:30
	→ de-vri-es joined	15:31
	→ greggerz_ joined	15:31
	← greggerz left	15:31
	← rardiol left	15:31
	→ RoriconKnight joined	15:33
	← gxt left	15:36
	← RoriconKnight left	15:37
	→ leeN joined	15:38
	→ RoriconKnight joined	15:38
	→ yawkat joined	15:40
	← uniquerockrz left	15:42
	← omnireq left	15:42
	→ uniquerockrz joined	15:47
	← planetcall\|work left	15:50
	← eamanu left	15:51
	→ mat001 joined	15:53
	← mat001 left	15:57
	→ CoolerX joined	15:59
CoolerX	ok I did a stupid thing and deleted all the files	15:59
	.git is still there	16:00
	→ submerciful joined	16:00
CoolerX	how do I rollback to the latest commit?	16:00
Bombe	git status tells you.	16:01
stennowork	would that actually restore deleted files?	16:03
CoolerX	uhoh	16:04
	fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git	16:04
	.git is still there	16:04
	you know what I will just delete everything and fetch from the remote	16:04
	← Belliash left	16:04
Bombe	Well, only the directory is not enough. Are there still files in it?	16:04
CoolerX	only lost a bit of work	16:04
	→ mowcat joined	16:05
CoolerX	Bombe, the folders are still there	16:05
rafasc	if the .git is there, git checkout <branch>; would mostly work.	16:05
CoolerX	but I can't find any files	16:05
Bombe	There’s your problem.	16:05
CoolerX	I ran this "del /f /s /q dist 1>nul"	16:05
	← uniquerockrz left	16:06
CoolerX	dangerous command right there	16:06
stennowork	windows things?	16:06
CoolerX	I thought it would just delete files inside the "dist" directory but that is not the case	16:06
rafasc	untracked files would be lost, staged files can be recovered with some effort. (fsck --lost-found)	16:06
	and reflog for committed.	16:06
CoolerX	rafasc, fsck is that linux only?	16:08
stennowork	fsck the system	16:08
rafasc	CoolerX: no, I am talking about $git fsck.	16:09
	CoolerX: if you ever did a git add on them, you can use $git fsck --lost-found, and it will write unreachable files into .git/lost-found	16:10
	← Noti left	16:10
	→ uniquerockrz joined	16:11
rafasc	You can try to find your files there. Usually done by grepping for a known string.	16:11
	← interrobangd left	16:12
CoolerX	rafasc, how does that work?	16:13
	if the files are delete	16:13
	d	16:13
	all the files inside .git	16:13
	are you hoping that they haven't been overwritten on disk?	16:13
rafasc	Ahh, if you deleted files inside .git, your out of luck.	16:13
	you're	16:13
	← sunri5e left	16:14
	→ sunri5e joined	16:18
	← chele left	16:19
	← uniquerockrz left	16:24
	→ glosoli joined	16:24
	← Hello71 left	16:25
	→ omnireq joined	16:27
	← omnireq left	16:29
	→ rsrx joined	16:32
	→ Hello71 joined	16:32
	→ omnireq joined	16:32
	→ uniquerockrz joined	16:34
	→ rkta_ joined	16:35
Nazral	osse: oh I see, but not way to actually read the previous version of the commit, or to get some information (like modification time)	16:36
	→ ARKANOID joined	16:36
	← rkta_ left	16:38
	← glosoli left	16:38
	→ glosoli joined	16:39
	→ Norimo joined	16:39
	← ARKANOID left	16:40
	→ aesthe joined	16:40
	→ shokohsc joined	16:42
	← algiss left	16:44
	← glosoli left	16:45
	→ truthseeker joined	16:47
	→ barteks2x joined	16:47
	→ cthulchu joined	16:50
	← uniquerockrz left	16:54
	→ benfelin joined	16:56
	← CoolerX left	16:58
	← benfelin left	17:01
	← dionysus69 left	17:02
	→ uniquerockrz joined	17:03
	← shady_traveller left	17:03
	← duderonomy left	17:05
	← oxymoron93 left	17:06
	← barteks2x left	17:07
	← xcm left	17:08
	→ xcm joined	17:08
	→ Atlenohen joined	17:09
	→ causasui joined	17:11
	← Heirlung left	17:12
	→ Heirlung joined	17:13
	→ niki joined	17:15
	← uniquerockrz left	17:16
	← rardiol_ left	17:18
	→ mat001 joined	17:18
osse	Nazral: if you know the sha1 then you can do it	17:19
	→ vicfred joined	17:19
osse	Nazral: if you don't know you can maybe find it with git fsck --lost-found	17:19
	Nazral: but in the specific rebase case you can use the !reflog	17:20
gitinfo	Nazral: The git reflog (`git log -g`) temporarily (90 days by default) snapshots your branch states at each operation that changes the branch, making it easy to undo e.g. merges and rebases. The usual warnings about !rewriting/undoing history apply. See http://sethrobertson.github.com/GitFixUm/ for full details.	17:20
stennowork	!fsck	17:20
gitinfo	[!profanity] Hey! This is a family-safe channel, so keep it frakking clean you fierfekker!	17:20
stennowork	:I	17:20
	well thats funny but how can i tell the bot to show me about git fsck ? :P	17:21
	!git-fsck	17:21
	← Inline left	17:21
stennowork	i will just read it up online	17:22
	← rfuentess left	17:22
	→ Inline joined	17:25
rafasc	man git fsck	17:25
gitinfo	the git-fsck manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-fsck.html	17:25
	→ uniquerockrz joined	17:25
	← Inline left	17:25
	→ dionysus69 joined	17:26
stennowork	man ed	17:26
	aw	17:26
	fair	17:26
rafasc	or !lost, or !dangling_commit	17:26
gitinfo	As long as you have `git commit`ed your changes (or even `git add`ed them), your changes will not be lost for over two weeks unless you work really hard at it. There are two places where "lost" changes can be hiding. They might be in the reflog (`git log -g`) or they might be in lost&found (`git fsck --unreachable`). Type "!dangling" and "!reflog" into IRC for more info.	17:26
	A dangling commit is a commit no longer reachable by any branch or tag. This can happen due to resets and rebases and are normal. `git show SHA` will let you inspect them. Also this (look for dots w/o children and w/o green label): gitk --all --date-order `git fsck --no-reflog \| grep "dangling commit" \| awk '{print $3;}'`	17:26
	→ Inline joined	17:28
	← Inline left	17:29
	→ Inline joined	17:31
	← stennowork left	17:32
	→ Human_G33k joined	17:32
	← Inline left	17:32
	→ dijitol joined	17:32
	← Human_G33k left	17:33
	← fphilipe left	17:33
	→ Human_G33k joined	17:33
	→ Inline joined	17:34
	← Human_G33k left	17:34
	→ Human_G33k joined	17:35
	→ plujon joined	17:35
	← HumanG33k left	17:35
	← mikecmpbll left	17:37
	← DarthRadar left	17:39
	← uniquerockrz left	17:39
plujon	I often find I would like to fixup a line of code such that the fixup is applied to the last time the same line was changed. Is there a handy way to do this in git? I'm aware of git?	17:39
	→ Phylock joined	17:40
	← clime left	17:44
OMGOMG	!amend > plujon	17:44
gitinfo	Use `git commit --amend` to combine your current staged changes with those in the previous commit. If you have already pushed the last commit, this counts as a !rewrite	17:44
rafasc	plujon: not builtin to git.	17:45
	there's osse's blame-diff; which figuring out the line, and a more automated tool called git absorb	17:45
	https://github.com/Osse/git-scripts/blob/master/git-blamediff	17:46
	https://github.com/tummychow/git-absorb	17:46
	→ uniquerockrz joined	17:46
	→ fphilipe joined	17:46
	→ DarthRadar joined	17:46
	→ caskd-dev joined	17:48
	← xcm left	17:51
	← fphilipe left	17:51
	← mowcat left	17:51
	→ xcm joined	17:51
	→ Dirak joined	17:52
plujon	rafasc: Thanks. I'll take a look..	17:53
	→ tonyj joined	17:54
	← m0viefreak left	17:55
	→ m0viefreak joined	17:57
	→ briian joined	17:58
	→ Stoot joined	17:59
	← DarthRadar left	17:59
	← briian left	18:00
	← uniquerockrz left	18:03
	→ DarthRadar joined	18:03
	→ spacesuitdiver joined	18:04
	→ fphilipe joined	18:06
	← dartmouthed left	18:07
	→ uniquerockrz joined	18:08
	→ oxymoron93 joined	18:11
	← bvdw left	18:11
	→ bvdw joined	18:12
	← fphilipe left	18:13
	→ enoq joined	18:14
	→ josvuk joined	18:14
josvuk	Hello! Im hacking ...	18:15
	doing so I want to see my editor which is used by git commit ...	18:16
	→ fphilipe joined	18:16
josvuk	git config --gloabal --get-all gives me error	18:17
	What can I do ....	18:17
	:-)	18:17
	← aesthe left	18:18
josvuk	error: wrong number of arguments, should be from 1, to 2	18:18
	← pks left	18:19
	← fphilipe left	18:21
oxymoron93	you need to provide the keys, check man git config	18:21
gitinfo	the git-config manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-config.html	18:21
oxymoron93	ie, add `core.editor` to the command	18:21
	← Jackneill left	18:22
	← Norimo left	18:22
	→ iNCoNFuN joined	18:24
	→ Norimo joined	18:24
	→ mat001_ joined	18:25
	← Dirak left	18:28
	← mat001 left	18:28
	← uniquerockrz left	18:29
	← KnoP left	18:33
	← josvuk left	18:34
	→ uniquerockrz joined	18:34
	→ KnoP joined	18:35
	→ wootehfoot joined	18:38
	← mat001_ left	18:40
	→ mat001 joined	18:40
	→ clemons joined	18:44
	→ peepsalot joined	18:44
peepsalot	how can i view the specific changes in a stash? if i do "git diff stash@{X}" it compares with head and there's been a merge so its showing a bunch of things I don't care about which weren't specifically changed in that stash itself	18:46
	→ clemons1 joined	18:46
osse	plujon: let me know of any bugs	18:46
	peepsalot: git stash show -p	18:46
peepsalot	osse: ah, thank you	18:47
osse	peepsalot: to use git diff specifically (eg. for scripting) you'd do git diff foo~ foo where foo is the stash thingy	18:48
	ie. diff with it's parent	18:48
	← clemons left	18:48
	← rsrx left	18:49
	← Paradisee left	18:51
rjstone	Does anyone know how to detect the failure of a previous step inside a javascript github action? I know it must be in a context or env variable but I can't seem to find the docs.	18:51
	→ Dirak joined	18:52
	← uniquerockrz left	18:53
	← Stoot left	18:56
snits	is there a way in .gitconfig to default git format-patch to --no-renames? I thought diff.renames = false did it, but apparently that isn't the case	18:59
	→ Stoot joined	18:59
	← clemons1 left	19:01
	→ uniquerockrz joined	19:02
	→ clemons1 joined	19:03
	→ Edisto joined	19:07
	→ ZeroWalker joined	19:07
	→ john2496 joined	19:08
	→ pks joined	19:08
ZeroWalker	can anyone help me with removing some git stuff from it's history. This case revolves around a casing issue where i ignored casing, but then didn't or something, so there's two versions, and i can get it to work but it's very annoying to try to fix it each time i happen to wana clone/push/pull etc. I have done it before but don't recall how, and googling shows something about --filter-branch which seems kinda complicated. So i	19:09
	thought i better ask someone first for some assistance:)	19:09
	→ Sasazuka joined	19:10
	← cdown left	19:11
	← Human_G33k left	19:12
	← iNCoNFuN left	19:13
	→ HumanG33k joined	19:13
	→ barteks2x joined	19:15
	← clemons1 left	19:15
	← enoq left	19:15
rafasc	ZeroWalker: !rewrite	19:16
gitinfo	ZeroWalker: Rewriting public history is not recommended. Everyone who has pulled the old history will have to do work (and you'll have to tell them to), so it's infinitely better to just move on. If you must, you can use `git push --force-with-lease <remote> <branch>` to force (and the remote may reject that, anyway). See http://goo.gl/waqum	19:16
	→ clemons1 joined	19:17
	→ lacrymology joined	19:17
rafasc	If you fix the case issue, new branches will not be affected. For older ones, enabling git rerere might help resolving repeated conflicts.	19:18
	← uniquerockrz left	19:20
	→ boombatower joined	19:26
	← sauvin left	19:26
	→ wyre joined	19:27
	→ uniquerockrz joined	19:27
	← T_UNIX left	19:29
	← figuinhas left	19:29
	← khisanth_ left	19:36
	→ khisanth_ joined	19:37
	→ howdoi joined	19:37
	← uniquerockrz left	19:41
	← vicfred left	19:42
	← dionysus69 left	19:45
	→ uniquerockrz joined	19:48
	← oxymoron93 left	19:50
	→ ndorf joined	19:52
	← Abbott left	19:54
	← lucasb left	19:57
	← reprazent left	19:59
	← plujon left	20:00
	→ plujon joined	20:01
	→ mowcat joined	20:01
	→ Narrat joined	20:05
	← uniquerockrz left	20:06
	← KnoP left	20:08
	← Dirak left	20:09
	→ malmalmal joined	20:09
	→ im0nde_ joined	20:11
	→ alexandre9099_ joined	20:12
	← BonusPlay left	20:12
	← alexandre9099 left	20:12
	→ BonusPlay joined	20:12
	← BonusPlay left	20:12
	→ BonusPlay joined	20:12
	← BonusPlay left	20:12
	→ BonusPlay joined	20:13
	← im0nde left	20:13
	← BonusPlay left	20:13
	→ jamiejackson joined	20:13
	→ BonusPlay joined	20:14
	→ uniquerockrz joined	20:15
	→ oxymoron93 joined	20:16
	← Narrat left	20:18
	→ Narrat joined	20:19
	← Phanes left	20:19
	← qqx left	20:20
	→ mixaz joined	20:21
	← Norimo left	20:21
	← Hello71 left	20:26
	← gpanders left	20:26
	← Hoffman left	20:26
	← ghost43 left	20:26
	→ Peng_ joined	20:26
	→ qqx joined	20:26
	→ Phanes joined	20:26
	← uniquerockrz left	20:28
	← john2496 left	20:30
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	20:32
	→ ghost43 joined	20:33
	→ tryte joined	20:33
	→ iNs joined	20:33
	→ uniquerockrz joined	20:34
	→ gpanders joined	20:34
	→ xelxebar joined	20:34
	→ gxt joined	20:35
	→ willbarr joined	20:35
	← truthseeker left	20:35
	← deadlysin left	20:36
	← Narrat left	20:39
	← emsjessec left	20:39
	→ Hoffman joined	20:39
	→ Dirak joined	20:39
	→ Narrat joined	20:40
	→ Hello71 joined	20:42
	→ gareppa joined	20:47
	→ akemhp joined	20:47
	→ mat001_ joined	20:49
	← oxymoron93 left	20:50
	→ KnoP joined	20:51
	← mat001_ left	20:51
	→ mat001_ joined	20:52
	← mat001 left	20:53
	← uniquerockrz left	20:56
	← Narrat left	20:56
	← zlogan left	20:57
	→ zlogan joined	20:57
	→ fstd_ joined	20:57
	→ Narrat joined	20:58
	→ elibrokeit joined	20:58
	→ heftig joined	20:58
	← royal_screwup21 left	20:58
	→ g00s joined	21:00
	← brettgilio left	21:00
	← greggerz_ left	21:01
	→ greggerz_ joined	21:02
	← fstd left	21:02
	fstd_ → fstd	21:02
	→ uniquerockrz joined	21:03
	← Narrat left	21:03
	← Dirak left	21:05
	→ Narrat joined	21:05
	← JanC left	21:06
	← gareppa left	21:06
	→ Xeago_ joined	21:06
	→ infl00p68 joined	21:07
	← malmalmal left	21:07
	→ misuto9 joined	21:07
	→ equwal- joined	21:07
	← misuto9 left	21:07
	→ cyberanger_ joined	21:07
	→ luckman212_ joined	21:07
	→ rjsalts_ joined	21:07
	→ bookworm_ joined	21:07
	→ holdsworth joined	21:07
	→ nero_ joined	21:07
	→ rmsvc_ joined	21:08
	← topdownjimmy left	21:08
	← Habbie left	21:08
	→ yawkat` joined	21:08
	→ lucasb joined	21:09
	→ irrgit_1 joined	21:09
	→ mikap joined	21:09
	→ SuperL4g joined	21:09
	→ Habbie joined	21:10
	→ cdunklau_ joined	21:10
	→ shalok_ joined	21:10
	→ coldaemon1 joined	21:10
	→ topdownjimmy joined	21:10
	→ thomasross_ joined	21:10
	← thomasross left	21:10
	thomasross_ → thomasross	21:10
	→ _BonusPlay joined	21:11
	→ alfredb joined	21:12
	← DarthRadar left	21:12
	← ColdKeyboard left	21:12
	← blaisebool left	21:12
	← bookworm left	21:12
	← uniquerockrz left	21:12
	← yawkat left	21:12
	← diogenese left	21:12
	← SuperLag left	21:12
	← BonusPlay left	21:12
	← tgunr left	21:12
	equwal- → equwal	21:12
	shalok_ → shalok	21:12
	Xeago_ → Xeago	21:12
	nero_ → nero	21:12
	mikap → mika	21:12
	→ splud joined	21:12
	→ Dirak joined	21:12
	→ diogenese joined	21:12
	← Habbie left	21:13
	→ cybrNaut joined	21:13
	→ _W_ joined	21:13
	→ kini joined	21:14
	→ markmarkmark joined	21:14
	→ Habbie joined	21:14
	→ clime joined	21:17
	→ Ekho joined	21:19
	← spacesuitdiver left	21:19
	← Narrat left	21:19
	→ rkta joined	21:20
	→ JanC joined	21:22
	← thomasross left	21:23
	→ cdown joined	21:25
	_BonusPlay → BonusPlay	21:26
	→ obiwahn joined	21:27
	→ josvuk joined	21:28
	→ hexa- joined	21:32
	→ thomasross joined	21:32
toothe	Is there a way to have git track files without running "add" ?	21:34
	without staging them.	21:34
_ikke_	sf	21:34
toothe	sf?	21:34
	→ akemhp_ joined	21:36
	← clime left	21:36
	→ Fernando-Basso joined	21:37
	bookworm_ → bookworm	21:37
	← akemhp left	21:38
	→ enoq joined	21:38
	→ Jackneill joined	21:40
	→ cdown_ joined	21:40
j416	toothe: git-commit can take paths.	21:41
toothe	I'm sorry, I don't follow?	21:41
j416	man git-commit	21:41
gitinfo	the git-commit manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-commit.html	21:41
j416	git commit <file>	21:42
toothe	Perhaps I'm not being clear - I do not want to commit the file just yet, but I want to see the difference sin my working tree	21:42
	← cdown left	21:42
	cdown_ → cdown	21:42
j416	man git-add look for -N	21:42
gitinfo	the git-add manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-add.html	21:42
_ikke_	git add -N <filenae>	21:42
	indeed	21:43
	← ZeroWalker left	21:43
toothe	ahh, thank you!	21:43
_ikke_	asking the right question helps a lot :)	21:43
	→ akem__ joined	21:48
	← alfredb left	21:49
	← josvuk left	21:50
	← akemhp_ left	21:50
	→ Narrat joined	21:51
	→ Anthaas_ joined	21:51
	← Anthaas left	21:51
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	21:54
	← Jackneill left	21:57
	cdunklau_ → cdunklau	21:58
	→ steven- joined	22:00
	← iNs left	22:03
	steven- → steven	22:03
	→ iNs joined	22:04
	→ rwb joined	22:05
	im0nde_ → im0nde	22:06
	← submerciful left	22:07
	← phanimahesh left	22:08
	← Phylock left	22:09
	← rkta left	22:10
	← enoq left	22:14
	← zlogan left	22:14
	← tmager left	22:17
	→ fphilipe joined	22:18
	← cdown left	22:19
	→ cd joined	22:19
	→ spacesuitdiver joined	22:20
	→ cdown joined	22:22
	← fphilipe left	22:23
	← leeN left	22:27
	← KnoP left	22:31
	← wootehfoot left	22:35
	→ cdown_ joined	22:35
	→ rkta joined	22:35
	→ cfoch joined	22:35
	← cdown left	22:37
	cdown_ → cdown	22:38
	→ thiago joined	22:38
	→ greggerz__ joined	22:41
	← greggerz_ left	22:44
	← greggerz__ left	22:44
	→ fphilipe joined	22:46
	→ akemhp_ joined	22:46
	← Narrat left	22:49
	← akem__ left	22:49
	← jamiejackson left	22:49
	→ Narrat joined	22:50
	← fphilipe left	22:51
	→ eamanu joined	22:51
	← peepsalot left	22:53
	→ misuto joined	23:00
	→ vicfred joined	23:01
	← cdown left	23:06
	← akemhp_ left	23:06
	← justanotheruser left	23:07
	→ zlogan joined	23:11
	← jbu left	23:11
	← feriman left	23:12
	→ VSpike joined	23:12
	← tryte left	23:13
	← rkta left	23:13
	→ tryte joined	23:13
	→ rkta joined	23:14
VSpike	Typical workflow for me is to be on master, do `git switch -c new_feature_branch`, make some changes, then `git push`, and every time get the error about no upstream being set ...	23:14
rafasc	VSpike: push -u	23:15
VSpike	then have to copy and paste the suggested line `git push --set-upstream origin new_feature_branch` .. what's best way to avoid this?	23:15
	`push origin HEAD` works but you have to do that every time, as upstream is still not set	23:15
rafasc	you can use $git push -u origin HEAD;	23:18
	← Fernando-Basso left	23:18
VSpike	rafasc: just tried that, and it's definitely a lot shorter! And can be aliased	23:18
rafasc	and you only need to do that the first time.	23:18
	→ rkta_ joined	23:19
	← rkta left	23:19
VSpike	I was wondering if that was to with the change to the push.default setting a while back, because my memory says it used to just assume you wanted to create a branch. But I might be misremembering	23:19
	rkta_ → rkta	23:19
VSpike	I have push.default = simple	23:19
rafasc	simple is the default anyways.	23:20
	← thiago left	23:21
	→ errr_ joined	23:21
rafasc	VSpike: I think that if change it to "current", it would work as you describe.	23:22
	But then, you lose the ability to push to the branch you are tracking automatically.	23:23
	← errr left	23:24
	← dijitol left	23:26
	← errr_ left	23:28
	← spacesuitdiver left	23:28
rafasc	VSpike: alias first-push='-c push.default=current push'	23:28
VSpike	Neat :)	23:29
rafasc	Not really better than HEAD, but just to demonstrate you can override configs with aliases.	23:29
VSpike	Yeah, I didn't know about that ... useful to know	23:29
rafasc	and you would probably want to add --set-upstream to that.	23:31
	← mowcat left	23:31
	→ spacesuitdiver joined	23:31
	→ deadlysin joined	23:31
	→ rardiol joined	23:35
	→ Codaraxis joined	23:36
	← g00s left	23:38
	→ KnoP joined	23:39
	→ somasis joined	23:39
	← localhorse left	23:42
	← kleisli left	23:44
	← boombatower left	23:46
Codaraxis	I'm working in an up-to-date working directory with a number of submodules. The submodules are listed as changed but not staged. Attempts to discard all modifications changes, including "git submodule update --init --recursive", CDing into each and running "git checkout ./", "git submodule update <individual submodule>", "git submodule update -f --init", "git checkout -- .", etc. have yielded nothing.	23:47
	Also, there doesn't appear to be any change when running a diff. I just see subproject commit <same id>-dirty for the change.	23:47
	Could someone tell me what's wrong and how I clean this up?	23:48
	→ mat001 joined	23:49
j416	Codaraxis: what does 'git status' say if you run it in one of the submodules?	23:49
Codaraxis	j416, Huh. It appears I have a detached head and it lists the modifications in that submodule	23:51
	← spacesuitdiver left	23:51
rafasc	detached head in submodules is normal.	23:51
j416	detached HEAD seems normal for a submodule (I don't use them so haven't checked, though)	23:52
	nod	23:52
	← mat001_ left	23:52
	← Narrat left	23:52
	→ jnewt joined	23:53
	→ akemhp joined	23:53
	→ errr_ joined	23:54
	→ kerframil joined	23:55
rafasc	Codaraxis: that does git status say on the parent project?	23:56
	you may have untracked files, which will make diff say dirty.	23:57
	since you already did update -f, the commit and staging area should be in sync.	23:58
	you can do something like: git submodule foreach git clean -i	23:58

Logs Search ←Prev date Next date→

Channels Documentation