IRCloggy #git 2019-12-17

Provider of IRC logs since 2005.

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

	2019-12-17
	← thiago left	00:03
Moongoodgirl	NeuroWinter: I would be averse to doing that. It sounds like it loses information about where the changes come from.	00:04
	I would prefer just using an interactive rebase to retcon out the commit, if it was never pushed; or else `git revert` if it was	00:05
	← omnireq left	00:05
	→ khisanth_ joined	00:07
	→ thiago joined	00:07
	→ g4570n joined	00:15
	→ greatgatsby joined	00:16
	→ sidetrack joined	00:19
	← xcm left	00:21
	→ xcm joined	00:21
	← Aelius left	00:26
	← mokha left	00:34
	← fahadash left	00:36
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	00:36
	→ oatmealraisin joined	00:42
	→ fission6 joined	00:46
	← greggerz left	00:50
	→ omnireq joined	00:52
	← alesan left	00:52
	← mat001_ left	00:52
	→ beastDiv_ joined	00:53
	← thiago left	00:57
	← Sasazuka left	01:00
	→ libertyprime joined	01:01
	→ Sasazuka joined	01:01
	→ parallel21 joined	01:03
	← fission6 left	01:08
	→ prepend joined	01:10
	← n3wborn left	01:14
	← beastDiv_ left	01:14
	← ixian8 left	01:16
	← registerihateto left	01:20
	← LearnAllTheTime left	01:22
	← durham left	01:23
	← Enphuego left	01:27
	← davispuh left	01:31
	← Sonicbit left	01:31
	← lucasb left	01:32
	← Helenah left	01:32
	← dartmouthed left	01:33
	→ Helenah joined	01:33
	← g4570n left	01:34
	→ im0nde joined	01:35
	← im0nde_ left	01:37
	← themayor left	01:39
	← Sasazuka left	01:52
	→ bambanx joined	01:53
	← sidetrack left	01:56
	qpdb → Guest2077	01:59
	← Guest2077 left	01:59
	→ qpdb joined	01:59
	← xcm left	01:59
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	02:01
	← zulutango left	02:02
	→ thiago joined	02:03
	→ LearnAllTheTime joined	02:03
	← mowcat left	02:03
	→ fphilipe_ joined	02:05
	→ zulutango joined	02:05
	← yawkat left	02:06
	→ jimender2 joined	02:09
	← fphilipe_ left	02:09
	→ fission6 joined	02:15
	← libertyprime left	02:18
	→ libertyprime joined	02:20
	→ durham joined	02:22
	→ yawkat joined	02:23
	← wodim left	02:24
	→ Love4Boobies joined	02:24
	→ wodim joined	02:24
	← Arcaelyx left	02:25
	← libertyprime left	02:25
	← JanC left	02:25
	→ yonder joined	02:26
	→ JanC joined	02:26
	→ libertyprime joined	02:26
	← durham left	02:27
	← rardiol left	02:34
	← F0rTex left	02:34
	→ orbyt_ joined	02:35
	→ F0rTex joined	02:36
	→ sidetrack joined	02:38
	← finalbeta1 left	02:38
	← daurnimator left	02:40
	← zulutango left	02:45
	→ Ranhir joined	02:47
	→ finalbeta joined	02:48
	→ daurnimator joined	02:49
	← robertparkerx left	03:01
	→ robertparkerx joined	03:01
	← kreyren left	03:05
	← royal_screwup21 left	03:10
	→ Newami joined	03:17
	→ zulutango joined	03:21
	← Cabanossi left	03:23
	→ Sonicbit joined	03:28
	→ Cabanossi joined	03:33
	→ duderonomy joined	03:45
	← libertyprime left	03:47
	← prepend left	03:48
	← monr0e left	03:50
	← oatmealraisin left	03:50
	→ Garen joined	03:52
	← lagothrix left	03:55
	→ lagothrix joined	03:55
	← Newami left	03:55
Eugene	fury - tbh, just make your new projects history going forward. Include a reference to the Monolith' URL in the first commit; if anybody cares about the archaeology they can go look it up, but I bet you they won't	04:00
	← Sleepy63 left	04:01
	→ kiki_lamb joined	04:02
	← sidetrack left	04:02
kiki_lamb	Is there a way to exhaustively string search the entire history of a repo? Like, not just current heads and not just one branch - I want to know if a particular string has ever occured in any commit in my repo.	04:03
	→ sidetrack joined	04:03
	→ sporeball joined	04:05
	← fission6 left	04:05
	← sidetrack left	04:08
	→ sidetrack joined	04:08
	← sporeball left	04:11
	← khisanth_ left	04:15
	← Lucas_Gray left	04:17
	→ bjpenn joined	04:32
bjpenn	if i created a "branch-of-branch" off "branch", which is based off master	04:33
	how do i eventually merge my "branch-of-branch" to master?	04:33
	← LearnAllTheTime left	04:39
	← ferdna left	04:39
	→ ahmedhany joined	04:39
	→ khisanth_ joined	04:39
ahmedhany	hi there everyone I have a technical question hope someone could help me	04:40
	I want to know which specific "executable" within git is responsible for pushing (i.e. uploading) staged files to the remote repository. As a security team we need this piece of info to be able to implement DLP policy within our premises to prevent the leakage of proprietary source code.	04:40
	→ ferdna joined	04:41
ahmedhany	to be more specific.. when I issue this command: "git push" which process (i.e. executable) is responsible for uploading the files or modifications to the remote repo	04:42
	← ferdna left	04:44
	→ ferdna joined	04:45
R2robot	can't you use a trace on it to see what is being called?	04:45
	← bjpenn left	04:46
	→ omnireq_ joined	04:47
ahmedhany	I did with "process monitor" and I found "git-credential-manager.exe" but it didn't work I guess	04:47
	I already hooked these executables with our dll but no result (the executables: "git-bash" "wish" "git-credential-manager" and I think something called mintty.exe)	04:48
	← sidetrack left	04:49
	← omnireq left	04:50
	→ sidetrack joined	04:52
	→ libertyprime joined	04:53
	← Shentino left	04:56
	← libertyprime left	04:57
	→ Shentino joined	04:59
	← Shentino left	05:00
	→ Shentino joined	05:01
	→ pks_ joined	05:01
	← pks left	05:04
	pks_ → pks	05:04
	→ Sleepy63 joined	05:06
	→ fstd_ joined	05:07
	→ ricks_ joined	05:10
	→ beastDiv_ joined	05:10
	← fstd left	05:11
	fstd_ → fstd	05:11
	← orbyt_ left	05:11
	← ricks_ left	05:11
	→ ricks_ joined	05:12
	→ beastDi__ joined	05:16
	← beastDiv_ left	05:17
	← bvdw left	05:18
	→ bvdw joined	05:19
	← beastDi__ left	05:20
	→ beastDiv_ joined	05:21
	← iam730 left	05:24
	→ dtux joined	05:25
Eugene	kiki_lamb - `git rev-list --all \| xargs git grep foobar`	05:25
	→ mns_ joined	05:25
	← mns left	05:25
Eugene	ahmedhany - time to pay an expert to explain the source to you then ;-). git can use custom helpers, but basically git calls out to `ssh` for the heavy lifting	05:27
	A better answer would be to monitor what processes actually open sockets when you run `git push`. I'm sure strace and lsof will be your friends	05:27
	→ YuGiOhJCJ joined	05:31
	← sidetrack left	05:31
	→ kjartan joined	05:36
	← kjartan_ left	05:38
	→ Goplat joined	05:38
	← Inline left	05:39
	→ sidetrack joined	05:41
	← g00s left	05:42
	← sidetrack left	05:42
	→ g00s joined	05:45
	← brettgilio left	05:46
	→ brettgilio joined	05:46
	→ BeerLover joined	06:01
fury	Eugene: normally I would agree, and that's what I started off with in the first project that split off into its own - first commit message just linked to the last commit from the monorepo. however, knowing how things work where I work, I will be the one being asked to enumerate the differences between version 1.xx and 2.xx and it will probably be easier for me to keep the boss from shitting his pants when I produce this next	06:02
	release if I can prove the code is "the same" (other than moved around)	06:02
	← howdoi left	06:03
Eugene	If your boss doesn't trust the release engineer to run `diff` then you have bigger problems IMO	06:03
	← boombatower left	06:03
	← ahmedhany left	06:04
fury	I agree, my new repo is built in CI for that very reason, to make it easier to "trust but verify"... this is the kind of guy who if the application CRC is different his palms get sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy, because one time 10 years ago this one thing changed in some stupid old crappy microcontroller compiler and something went wrong that got missed until after it went through production so now every little thing ever	06:07
	since gets an inordinate amount of scrutiny	06:07
	→ ricks__ joined	06:08
	← ricks__ left	06:08
	← ricks_ left	06:09
fury	At least now I have full control over the software and can remove things like baking the build date into the application, for 100% reproducible builds :D	06:10
	← dtux left	06:14
	→ Mattiaslndstrm joined	06:14
	← bambanx left	06:15
fury	Small company, so, I am the software engineer, release engineer, testing engineer, web monkey, etc. :P I have to write the code, then the code that tests the code, then the code that tests the tester, etc.	06:15
Eugene	kno dat	06:18
	→ mikami joined	06:18
	→ kreyren joined	06:20
	→ sauvin joined	06:22
	→ Sonicbit_ joined	06:41
	← Sonicbit_ left	06:41
tabakhase	fury yea, dont "manually" anything... the tool to "split out foders" you alread yfound as it seems, from there one would usually "cut" with a trusted tree, keep that as archive and allow anyone who needs later to "pull both, and link them with git-replace" (what makes git-blame and everything work again)	06:43
	← Sonicbit left	06:44
	← tango_ left	06:44
	← Mattiaslndstrm left	06:44
tabakhase	git commit-tree and some back&forth branching	06:45
	→ senaps joined	06:48
	← senaps left	06:49
	→ nirmalhk7 joined	06:49
	→ senaps joined	06:50
	← nirmalhk7 left	06:50
	→ tango_ joined	06:51
	→ nirmalhk7 joined	06:53
	← Moongoodgirl left	06:54
	← nirmalhk7 left	06:54
	→ xcm joined	06:56
	← kreyren left	06:57
	→ dionysus69 joined	06:59
	→ kreyren joined	06:59
	← Cabanossi left	06:59
	← kreyren left	07:01
	→ dtux joined	07:01
	→ nirmalkhedkar joined	07:03
	← thiago left	07:03
	← duderonomy left	07:04
	← nirmalkhedkar left	07:04
	→ sQVe joined	07:08
	→ Cabanossi joined	07:10
	← cbreak left	07:15
	← senaps left	07:15
	→ Moongoodboy joined	07:15
	→ cbreak joined	07:15
	Moongoodboy → Moongoodgirl	07:17
	→ Noti joined	07:17
	← Goplat left	07:19
	← Assault left	07:24
	→ senaps joined	07:26
	← sauvin left	07:27
	← pie_ left	07:31
	→ nirmalkhedkar joined	07:33
	→ BrainWork joined	07:33
	← nirmalkhedkar left	07:33
BrainWork	hi. in ancient version control systems like CVS, there was a way to put a tag into your file that would be munged on pre-commit, i think it was $CVS$. is there a way to do something similar with git, and to make it clear i'm after a human readable incrementing version number that isnt and shouldnt be the same as the git commit id.	07:34
	→ sauvin joined	07:34
BrainWork	i want it for a version number of a module	07:34
	and also its fine if its just a single integer number, i'll hard code "1.0." on the start	07:35
osse	BrainWork: there isn't anything that is a direct replacement	07:36
BrainWork	i was kind of hoping someone had made a pre-commit hook i could just snaffle	07:36
osse	you can do it via a pre-commit hook or a clean/smudge filter	07:36
	← n000g left	07:37
selckin	sounds like a job for the CI/build server	07:37
BrainWork	yeah, except i dont do 'releases' of this as such	07:37
tabakhase	there is gitversion - what gives like "actual version +dirty commits" as one useable thing...	07:38
BrainWork	its a pair of rolling branches, a dev and live branch, that are updated as and when needed without proper releases	07:38
	→ n000g joined	07:38
osse	What do you need the number for? Maybe there's a different way of solving the underlying challenge	07:38
	← beastDiv_ left	07:39
BrainWork	my program has a core binary that's built by cmake, and a bunch of libraries that are shared objects, also built from the same cmake	07:39
tabakhase	but git is more as in "someone decides this state is this version" and then tags it, rather than "having it in a file" - and often some shellfu if that needs to be baked in a file to release something	07:39
BrainWork	its possible that i can be running the core binary and do a cmake to rebuild a module to hotpatch it	07:39
	within the thing it runs on i can issue a 'modules list' command to show me what is running, theres a 'get version string' command for each module	07:39
	i could put the first few or last chars of a git commit id in there ofc, but i wanted something more human readable where i can easily compare if the source code is newer or older than whats running atm	07:40
osse	you can put $Id$ into the file, but Git will use the object sha1	07:40
BrainWork	without having to go into the shell	07:40
	yeah $Id$ has no concept to me of whats newer or older does it	07:40
selckin	$date	07:40
	→ nirmalkhedkar joined	07:41
osse	BrainWork: not directly. you would have to look that up	07:41
BrainWork	hmm, turn the date into a version number?	07:41
	i suppose i could do that if i turn it into unixtime and divide by 100 or something	07:41
selckin	well $commitid build on $date from branch v5.x	07:41
BrainWork	thats a bit long for the field i've got	07:42
	i have display limitations, i can really only fit "n.n.nnnn" in there	07:42
	→ n3wborn joined	07:42
BrainWork	or maybe 5 digits on the last bit	07:42
	← nirmalkhedkar left	07:42
tabakhase	if thats a monorepo and the way people hop in gitbranches makes such things a bit troublesome too, so depends on a lot of other things in your workflow...	07:42
selckin	it'll take some brain work then	07:42
	→ nirmalkhedkar joined	07:43
BrainWork	its made a little easier by the fact the only maintainer is me atm	07:43
	hmm, perhaps i can make a simple text only db, store it alongside the hook, with the filename and the increment number	07:43
	← nirmalkhedkar left	07:44
BrainWork	because all these files are under a specific subdirectory	07:44
	and make a simple perl script or such	07:44
tabakhase	and if youre talking of "on a users workstation" - youve also got unstaged changes ontop of this.. so lotta info to decode into that	07:44
osse	I think I would use cmake for this. configure_file(config.h.in) or whatever, and that contains @VERSION@ etce tc	07:44
BrainWork	nope, the only place this runs is on my dedicated server	07:45
	its a discord bot	07:45
	hmm, interesting to use cmake for it	07:45
	→ breakingsad joined	07:46
BrainWork	i dont know that much about cmake and generally muddle my way along, so im going to read up on that, thanks osse :)	07:46
tabakhase	ive got a case where i build: ref="$(/usr/bin/git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD \|\| date +%s)-dirty$(git status --porcelain \| wc -l)/$(date +%s)"	07:46
	→ sydbarret joined	07:48
	→ chele joined	07:48
	→ dartmouthed joined	07:49
BrainWork	last time i did something like this, i was doing it on release	07:50
	years before there was stuff like jenkins or circleci i'd made some kind of ghetto CI/release management that would run on crontab looking for tags matching a certain regular expression, and try to clone and build them, if they passed it would tar them up and upload them... back then, to sourceforge.	07:51
	part of that was building a version.sh from an incrementing id	07:52
	but that was much easier as i had tags etc to work from	07:52
	perhaps i need to do something similar here and make sure i tag before i merge it to live	07:52
	or as part of the process	07:52
osse	This limit you mention... Is that a hard limit in the binary or a limit in the display?	07:52
BrainWork	a display limit	07:53
	due to the client which displays the module list, which i cant control	07:53
	← veegee left	07:54
BrainWork	i can trim some characters out of another field, but im a bit pressed for space (dont let the right hand edge deceive you, it has to be mobile friendly and any wider makes it wrap on mobile): https://snipboard.io/z4gP8m.jpg	07:55
	tbh they just need to support tabular content already, instead of making me kludge it via code blocks and diff format	07:56
	← k_sze left	07:56
	→ k_sze joined	07:57
	→ veegee joined	07:57
	→ morfin joined	07:57
morfin	hello	07:57
	← dtux left	07:57
morfin	is there a way to wipe out some commits from the middle of history?	07:58
_ikke_	morfin: depends	07:58
	technically possible: yes	07:58
	feasible: depends	07:58
BrainWork	sounds dangerous to the commits that come after	07:58
	→ SteffanW joined	07:58
_ikke_	morfin: an iteractive rebase can do it	07:58
	← Noti left	07:58
	→ masuberu joined	07:59
morfin	well, i want somehow to do that to remove some commits from remote repo(yes i'll have to push -f and screw up remote history)	07:59
	→ pie_ joined	08:00
masuberu	hi, I am a little bit confused with git and I would like to ask what I'm missing... Basically I have 2 branches b1 and b2, I do git merge b2 from b1	08:00
	and then I run git diff b1 b2	08:00
	this shows me changes on both branches	08:00
	it should only give me changes on one of them right?	08:00
_ikke_	masuberu: no, git diff diffs exactly 2 commits, what happend between them does not matter	08:01
	masuberu: there is git diff b1...b2 (note the three dots) which does what you want	08:01
	→ nirmalhk7 joined	08:04
	← nirmalhk7 left	08:04
	→ netz_ joined	08:05
	→ apoos_maximus joined	08:05
	← netz_ left	08:06
	← netz left	08:07
masuberu	_ikke_ ok using `...` now does not show any input which is what I expected... but, what is the difference with not using the `...`? you mentioned git diff compares 2 commits but the last commit of one of the branches already have the changes of the other one?	08:08
	→ netz joined	08:09
osse	masuberu: git diff b1...b2 does a diff of their merge-base and b2	08:09
	← veegee left	08:10
	← sydbarret left	08:15
masuberu	osse, so are you saying that git merge and git merge-base are the same?	08:15
	→ veegee joined	08:16
	→ SerialSmile joined	08:16
	← causasui left	08:18
osse	that's comments-section-of-political-news-article levels of assumption :O	08:18
	git merge-base just find the common ancestor of two branches	08:18
	git diff b1...b2 = git diff $(git merge-base b1 b2) b2	08:18
	← masuberu left	08:20
osse	Oops	08:21
	I might have gone over the top there	08:21
	→ BeerLove_ joined	08:21
	← BeerLover left	08:23
	→ gloomy joined	08:25
	→ masuberu joined	08:26
masuberu	osse, sorry, I still don't understand. So lets say I have master and then I create a branch feature1 and I with time feature1 has several commits. Then I make 3 more commits in master and I do git merge master from feature1 branch. From my understanding is that all changes in master are included in feature1. correct?	08:29
osse	masuberu: correct	08:29
_ikke_	but not all changes from feature1 are included in master	08:29
masuberu	correct	08:30
_ikke_	so if you do a git diff, you'll see the changes that are in feature1, but not in master	08:30
masuberu	but I expect when I do diff master feature1 to show only the codes of line that exists only in feature1	08:30
_ikke_	Yes, but that's not how git diff works	08:31
	just plain git diff A B does not care about branche	08:31
	It just looks at the differences between commit A and commit B	08:31
	→ kleisli joined	08:32
osse	but you should see something close to that, though	08:32
_ikke_	right	08:33
masuberu	what is the definition of a commit? I thought it was like a snapshot of code after being persisted	08:34
_ikke_	9yes	08:34
	→ fphilipe_ joined	08:35
	← masuberu left	08:36
	→ planetcall\|work joined	08:37
	→ shady_traveller joined	08:38
	→ oxymoron93 joined	08:41
	← senaps left	08:42
	→ mobidrop joined	08:45
	→ beastDiv_ joined	08:46
	← BeerLove_ left	08:51
	→ sidetrack joined	08:52
BrainWork	hmm	08:52
	i tried to make a pre-commit hook, but it seems i cant modify a file within the pre-commit hook	08:53
	as its again considered modified and needs to be git add'ed again	08:53
osse	u r rong	08:53
	yes, you have to add it again	08:53
BrainWork	but that defeats the point	08:53
	i want to change the actual file in the git commit and have that treated as part of the change	08:53
	e.g. ive made change A, im adding change B to that change (incrementing a version id) and then want to commit the lot under the "banner" of the commit	08:54
osse	and that's exactly what you accomplish if you git add in the hook	08:54
	I mean, you can run git add from within the hook	08:54
BrainWork	hmm	08:55
	it doesnt work if i do that	08:55
	because then once the commit is complete, the files are 'add'ed again	08:55
	which means i'd need to commit the change	08:55
	which means it would change the files again	08:56
	etc etc	08:56
	basically the change i make becomes part of the /next/ commit	08:56
osse	I don't really know what to say. From my testing it works	08:56
BrainWork	https://superuser.com/questions/768826/how-to-commit-files-modified-by-pre-commit-hook-in-git	08:57
	← sidetrack left	08:57
BrainWork	this is the problem	08:57
osse	I have a pre-commit that does "echo lol >> file; git add file" and everything I make other changes it's updated and committed	08:57
	← ferdna left	08:58
	← jimender2 left	08:59
BrainWork	yes but then after the commit, does it show 'file' as modified, and added, in green ready for another commit?	08:59
	rather than 'repository clean'	08:59
osse	no, it's clean	08:59
BrainWork	i basically have to commit twice	08:59
	this doesnt work if you're also modifying 'file' as part of the workflow	09:00
osse	and when I do "git show" it'll show the changes the hook made as well	09:00
BrainWork	because you have a commit for your changes to 'file' and a commit for the pre-commits changes to 'file'	09:00
osse	what do you mean	09:01
	→ stkirk joined	09:01
BrainWork	https://ideone.com/i0rE9B	09:01
	this	09:01
	→ mobidrop_ joined	09:01
BrainWork	so i make changes in an editor to the four cpp files and add them, then i commit my changes, like 1 thru 15	09:02
	i then do git status after git commit and it shows the files i just committed are now modified again, waiting for another commit (line 20) - this is because the pre-commit changed them and "git add"ed them	09:02
	i commit a second time (line 29)	09:02
	→ figuinhas joined	09:02
BrainWork	this then pushes the changes to the repo that git-commit made	09:03
	s/git-commit/pre-commit	09:03
	then i do a git status, its clean	09:03
	i do a git log, and i have two commits	09:03
osse	what does the pre-commit hook look like?	09:03
	→ lmariscal0 joined	09:03
	→ \|Fitz\|9 joined	09:03
	→ rfuentess joined	09:03
	→ lem-fr5 joined	09:03
	→ BtbN_ joined	09:03
	→ shored1 joined	09:03
	→ Case_Of_ joined	09:03
	→ LiENUX joined	09:03
	→ Qiz joined	09:03
	→ cyberpear_ joined	09:03
	→ tcsc_ joined	09:03
	→ Milos_ joined	09:03
	→ Nizumzen_ joined	09:03
	→ rknLA_ joined	09:03
	→ cebor_ joined	09:03
	→ LasseVK_ joined	09:03
	→ jleclanche_ joined	09:03
	→ heinrich5991_ joined	09:03
	→ lebster_ joined	09:03
	→ quesker_ joined	09:03
	→ Arguggi_ joined	09:03
	→ junderw_ joined	09:03
	→ holdsworth_ joined	09:03
	→ cluelessperson_ joined	09:03
	→ IAmNetx_ joined	09:03
BrainWork	https://ideone.com/BpmG5Y	09:03
	→ afisher_ joined	09:03
BrainWork	like that osse	09:03
	→ fury__ joined	09:03
	→ ssd532 joined	09:04
	→ yena_ joined	09:04
	→ \u joined	09:04
	→ ryjen joined	09:04
	→ chachasmooth_ joined	09:04
	→ prit_ joined	09:04
BrainWork	yeah its php, i found it quicker to prototype than remembering how perl worked	09:04
	→ moviuro_ joined	09:04
	→ JackMc_ joined	09:04
BrainWork	and ugh i hate netsplits	09:04
	→ dustinm- joined	09:04
	→ __salt joined	09:04
osse	BrainWork: do you have a shell wrapper around that? because the hook needs to be named "pre-commit" literally	09:04
	→ dansan_ joined	09:04
BrainWork	tbh it looks like im going to have to have a seperate modules/file.cpp.ver.h or such	09:04
	→ brethil_ joined	09:04
BrainWork	yes i do	09:04
	→ tjbp_ joined	09:05
	→ Decobus_ joined	09:05
	→ heftig_ joined	09:05
BrainWork	https://ideone.com/9pDeMY	09:05
	→ sentriz6 joined	09:05
	→ devster joined	09:05
	→ ztrawhcse joined	09:05
	→ PocketKiller joined	09:05
	← sauvin left	09:05
	→ bket_ joined	09:05
	← Whiskey left	09:06
	→ n3wborn_ joined	09:06
BrainWork	i based it off the example	09:06
	→ Seveas_ joined	09:06
	→ jtmusky_ joined	09:06
	→ Peng__ joined	09:06
	→ sgn_ joined	09:06
osse	on line 40 you got a clean repo	09:06
BrainWork	yes but only after two commits	09:07
	→ unCork joined	09:07
BrainWork	i never get a clean repo after just one commit, which is what i really want	09:07
	→ apetresc_ joined	09:07
	→ arooni_team_b joined	09:07
osse	shouldn't you always get have uncommitted changes if this works like you think?	09:07
	→ veegee_ joined	09:07
BrainWork	basically, the commit i made to change the .cpp files by hand	09:07
	→ fructose0 joined	09:07
BrainWork	no, i want those changes to the file to be transparent	09:07
osse	Yes I get that	09:07
	→ BeerLover joined	09:07
osse	But if you're right that this doesn't work like it should, why do you get a clean repo after two commits?	09:08
	Shouldn't you NEVER have a clean repo then?	09:08
BrainWork	hmm. thats a good question	09:08
	and i would expect to never have a clean repo	09:09
	→ Whiskey joined	09:09
BrainWork	so why were there two commits?	09:09
	→ cyberanger_ joined	09:09
	→ segnior_ joined	09:09
	→ varesa_ joined	09:09
	→ Defcronyke` joined	09:09
osse	ỳou made two commits :p	09:09
	→ markzen_ joined	09:09
	→ mu_ joined	09:09
	→ crose joined	09:09
BrainWork	hmm	09:10
	it seems to work now	09:10
osse	ok, siomple test, with this hook in place: Make a small change somewhere else. add and commit. run git show	09:10
	→ steven- joined	09:10
osse	yaaay	09:10
BrainWork	every time i tested it before, there were two commits for every change i made	09:10
	im at a loss why its suddenly working but lets not poke the bear lol	09:10
	thanks osse :)	09:10
	← Whiskey left	09:10
	→ Kronuz_ joined	09:10
	→ polyrob_ joined	09:10
osse	PROBLEM!!!	09:10
	→ c0san0stra_ joined	09:10
	← mobidrop left	09:10
	← veegee left	09:10
	← n3wborn left	09:10
	← daurnimator left	09:10
	← qpdb left	09:10
	← Helenah left	09:10
	← IAmNetx left	09:10
	← Decobus left	09:10
	← roadie left	09:10
	← rfuentess__ left	09:10
	← steven left	09:10
	← grumble left	09:10
	← markzen left	09:10
	← Arguggi left	09:10
	← chachasmooth left	09:10
	← devster31 left	09:10
	← zerogue left	09:10
	← a--m left	09:10
	← CalimeroTeknik left	09:10
	← elibrokeit left	09:10
	← Kaisyu7 left	09:10
	← bremner left	09:10
	← StuartMI left	09:10
	← heftig left	09:10
	← mdk left	09:10
	← doug16k left	09:10
	← heinrich5991 left	09:10
	← BtbN left	09:10
	← shored left	09:10
	← Thorn left	09:10
	← _salt left	09:10
	← eblip left	09:10
	← apetresc left	09:10
	← sgn left	09:10
	← bket left	09:10
	← Milos left	09:10
	← polyrob left	09:10
	← ZachGibbens left	09:10
	← Nizumzen left	09:10
	← kashike left	09:10
	← Mindi left	09:10
	← cluelessperson left	09:10
	← lucasseikioshiro left	09:10
	← swalladge left	09:10
	← jleclanche left	09:10
	← jrun left	09:10
	← SJr left	09:10
	← sparr left	09:10
	← moviuro left	09:10
	← yena left	09:10
	← junderw left	09:10
	← rknLA left	09:10
	← Bilge left	09:10
	← xkr47 left	09:10
	← avu left	09:10
	← arooni left	09:10
	← segnior left	09:10
	← lem-fr left	09:10
	← jelmer left	09:10
	← PacKetSlayer left	09:10
	← de-vri-es left	09:10
	← jtmusky left	09:10
	← inscrutable left	09:10
	← lebster left	09:10
	← Peng left	09:10
	← ssd532_ left	09:10
	← batrick left	09:10
	← cebor left	09:10
	← prit left	09:10
	← fructose left	09:10
	← _flow_ left	09:10
	← sostenuto left	09:10
	← gitinfo left	09:10
	← synx left	09:10
	← rcn left	09:10
	← GGMethos left	09:10
	← raatiniemi left	09:10
	← Cork left	09:10
	← c0san0stra left	09:10
	← goldleader left	09:10
	← quesker left	09:10
	← Case_Of left	09:10
	← no_maam left	09:10
	← Kartagis left	09:10
	← alip left	09:10
	← holdsworth left	09:10
	← meowray left	09:10
	← LiENUS left	09:10
	← sentriz left	09:10
	← \|Fitz\| left	09:10
	← Seveas left	09:10
	← Qizzy left	09:10
	← dustinm left	09:10
	← Defcronyke left	09:10
	← lmariscal left	09:10
	← level3 left	09:10
	← slax0r left	09:10
	← tjbp left	09:10
	← brethil left	09:10
	← varesa left	09:10
	← dexterfoo left	09:10
	← sjohnson left	09:10
	← robinsmidsrod left	09:10
	← afisher left	09:10
	← DistantStar_ left	09:10
	← bittyx left	09:10
	← SpeakerToMeat left	09:10
	← mu left	09:10
	← andi_ left	09:10
	← eldritch left	09:10
	← Cathy left	09:10
	← DevAntoine left	09:10
	← ZeZu left	09:10
	← jan6 left	09:10
	← ross` left	09:10
	← nemesit\|znc left	09:10
	← cjohnson left	09:10
	← cyberpear left	09:10
	← fuchstronaut left	09:10
	← tcsc left	09:10
	← Kobaz left	09:10
	← fury_ left	09:10
	← Kronuz left	09:10
	← sitaram left	09:10
	← JackMc left	09:10
	← LasseVK left	09:10
	BtbN_ → BtbN	09:10
	heinrich5991_ → heinrich5991	09:10
	\|Fitz\|9 → \|Fitz\|	09:10
	unCork → Cork	09:10
osse	Do you use git add -p sometimes?	09:10
	ryjen → zerogue	09:10
	IAmNetx_ → IAmNetx	09:10
	apetresc_ → apetresc	09:10
	rknLA_ → rknLA	09:10
	junderw_ → junderw	09:10
	Case_Of_ → Case_Of	09:10
	Kronuz_ → Kronuz	09:10
	Defcronyke` → Defcronyke	09:10
	yena_ → yena	09:10
	prit_ → prit	09:10
	→ cjohnson_ joined	09:10
	LasseVK_ → LasseVK	09:10
	tcsc_ → tcsc	09:10
	→ a--m joined	09:11
	jleclanche_ → jleclanche	09:11
	cyberpear_ → cyberpear	09:11
	lem-fr5 → lem-fr	09:11
	← rkta left	09:11
BrainWork	aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah	09:11
	polyrob_ → polyrob	09:11
	JackMc_ → JackMc	09:11
BrainWork	i dont miss this shit about irc at all	09:11
	→ Cathy joined	09:11
	afisher_ → afisher	09:11
	→ rkta_ joined	09:11
	→ grumble joined	09:11
	lebster_ → lebster	09:11
	rkta_ → rkta	09:11
BrainWork	hmm, not sure what -p does off the top of my head so the answer to that would be a big fat no	09:11
osse	Because if you add partial changes to one of the files the hook modifies the hook will add the whole thing	09:11
	→ eirc joined	09:11
	Nizumzen_ → Nizumzen	09:11
	steven- → steven	09:11
BrainWork	hmm, wasnt aware thats even a thing	09:11
osse	In that case there is no problem.	09:11
	→ Whiskey joined	09:11
	Peng__ → Peng	09:11
	c0san0stra_ → c0san0stra	09:11
osse	what don't you miss about irc?	09:11
BrainWork	netsplits	09:11
	→ bittyx joined	09:12
BrainWork	:(	09:12
	big hairy netsplits	09:12
	← mniip left	09:12
	→ jan61 joined	09:12
	→ SJr joined	09:12
osse	oh	09:12
	→ eldritch joined	09:12
BrainWork	thing i dont get is, its a solved problem now in 2019. there are tons of decentralised systems that could do a netsplit-proof irc	09:12
	i guess nobody has the desire to any more, as irc is slowly dwinding and only us technical types seem to be left	09:13
	dwindling*	09:13
	→ lucasseikioshiro joined	09:13
BrainWork	anyway that's a little OT	09:13
	hmm	09:14
	how to i ensure this pre-commit hook is added to all copies of the repo?	09:14
	e.g. fetched when someone clones or pulls	09:14
pandem1	you can't	09:14
BrainWork	i can't put it server-side?	09:14
	that would be a fix if i can	09:15
	but then the server side cant git-add	09:15
	hmm	09:15
osse	You can put it server-side as part of the repo, and then have users install it (via a symlink for example)	09:15
	mobidrop_ → mobidrop	09:15
pandem1	i don't think github for example allows hooks so depends on where your server-side is	09:15
tabakhase	fairly common to have ".git-hooks" and have the user link that into .git/hooks or such ye	09:16
	→ rcn joined	09:16
	→ mniip joined	09:16
tabakhase	(as without that "git clone" would be a RCE ;D)	09:17
	→ avu joined	09:17
	→ sostenuto joined	09:17
	→ SpeakerToMeat joined	09:17
	→ de-vri-es joined	09:17
	→ inscrutable joined	09:17
	→ kashike joined	09:17
	→ daurnimator joined	09:17
	→ qpdb joined	09:17
	→ no_maam joined	09:17
	→ doug16k joined	09:17
	→ markmarkmark joined	09:18
	→ level3 joined	09:18
	→ andi_ joined	09:18
	← pie_ left	09:18
	→ Helenah joined	09:18
	→ swalladge joined	09:18
	→ jrun joined	09:18
	→ mdk joined	09:18
	→ sjohnson joined	09:19
	→ batrick joined	09:19
	→ _flow_ joined	09:19
	→ eblip joined	09:19
	→ gitinfo joined	09:19
	ChanServ set mode: +o	09:19
BrainWork	i made a directory called hooks with the scripts in off the root of the source tree and a ./install.sh file that can be ran to cp them into the hooks dir	09:20
	i'll put a README.md in it	09:20
	that should suffice :)	09:20
	worst case scenario if its not installed the version numbers of modules dont auto increment, its not really the end of the world in the short term	09:21
	← Whiskey left	09:21
osse	now with all that work done I still think doing it in cmake would be the best approach :P (sorry)	09:21
	→ Thorn joined	09:22
	← figuinhas left	09:22
	→ Whiskey joined	09:22
	→ feriman joined	09:22
BrainWork	osse, perhaps, ive looked into it, each module would need a separate template file e.g. modname_version.h.in	09:22
	which is copied to modname_version.h and incremented	09:23
osse	sort of, yes.	09:23
BrainWork	perhaps more suitable for a project's version number rather than a modules version number?	09:23
osse	not sure there's a meaningful difference between those two things	09:23
BrainWork	a project has one version number, many modules each have their own version number	09:24
	means lots of version header templates :)	09:24
osse	I suppose you could put all into one header	09:24
	the copying is done by cmake itself via configure_file(). you just need to set a variable to the correct value	09:28
	→ KeyJoo joined	09:30
	→ bytefire joined	09:31
osse	n owait	09:31
	that means doing at build time.	09:32
	which makes sense to me, but you can't simply increment a number. You must figure out what the number should be	09:32
BrainWork	yeah	09:33
	thats useful for releases, when you know youre releasing "version 1.3"	09:33
bytefire	hi, i have a repo with following structure: repo-root/{a.txt, b.txt, sub-dir/{a.txt, b.txt}}. i want to remove everything under repo-root/ dir and copy contents of sub-dir/* to repo-root so repo-root has a.txt and b.txt which are currently under sub-dir/	09:33
	how can i do this so as to achieve best git history?	09:34
	i.e. if after this change, someone does `git log a.txt` they get history of sub-dir/a.txt	09:35
	is it even possible?	09:35
BrainWork	https://i.snipboard.io/JNrQSt.jpg <-- got the version numbers working great :)	09:36
	i dont have to worry about their values any more, just commit and forget	09:36
	→ TomyLobo joined	09:37
osse	goddammit, thesaurus.com doesn't have any alternatives for "commit" that starts with F	09:37
	can I get an F in the chat bois	09:37
	→ roadie joined	09:38
osse	bytefire: git log --follow a.txt	09:38
	bytefire: alternatively you can use filter-branch to produce a new repo that looks like sub-dir was the root dir all along, but that's a detructive operation	09:39
cdunklau	osse: "finalize"?	09:39
osse	finalize and forget	09:39
	I can dig it	09:39
BrainWork	why f?	09:39
cdunklau	osse: fertigstellen :D	09:40
BrainWork	as in fire-and-forget?	09:40
cdunklau	although that's a separable verb, irritatingly	09:40
BrainWork	fabricate	09:40
	→ CalimeroTeknik joined	09:41
	← SerialSmile left	09:41
cdunklau	osse: foist	09:41
BrainWork	could just change the last word and have 'commit-and-care-less'	09:41
cdunklau	i like that the best	09:41
	foment?	09:41
osse	FERTIGSTELLEN UND VERGESSEN!!!	09:41
BrainWork	ferment :D	09:41
cdunklau	forcefeed	09:41
	cmon there are TONS	09:41
osse	oh, here's an older meme (that checks out): !!!!!1enz	09:41
	I mean einz	09:41
cdunklau	fortend	09:41
	freeze is ...kinda close? i guess?	09:42
	furnish	09:42
	ok i'll stop	09:42
	osse: "eins", or is the misspelling part of the meme?	09:43
	there's another version too !!!1eleventy	09:43
osse	cdunklau: Maybe. I thoguht it was spelled einz	09:43
cdunklau	it _sounds_ like einz	09:43
	depending on where you are	09:44
osse	yeah but it has to be german, I think. systemd and whatnot. PID EINS	09:44
	→ pie_ joined	09:44
cdunklau	i think we're gehen a bisschen too weit	09:44
	← spacefrog left	09:44
bytefire	osse: thanks. this change is destrucive anyway because i'll be deleting whatever is in root. but --follow will be good	09:45
osse	bytefire: I meant destructive in the "rewriting history" sense	09:45
	aka. in the "everybody essentially has to reclone" sense	09:45
bytefire	ah i see. got it	09:47
	← mikami left	09:49
	→ Phylock joined	09:49
	→ mikami joined	09:50
	→ sidetrack joined	09:51
	← inscrutable left	09:52
	← sidetrack left	09:55
	← crose left	09:55
	→ crose joined	09:56
bytefire	osse: does it make any difference to git history if i delete contents of repo-root/ first, make a commit, then add files from sub-dir/ and make a second commit? or is this the same as doing both in same commit?	09:57
osse	bytefire: git doesn't care	09:58
bytefire	thank you	09:59
	osse: i'll pray that your cattle grows and that you have many sons	09:59
	→ rfuentess__ joined	10:03
Love4Boobies	It took me 2 minutes to realize why termdebug wasn't working in Vim. I forgot to install gdb.	10:03
	Love4Boobies feels retarded.	10:04
	→ multiproc joined	10:05
	→ Novae joined	10:05
	← rfuentess left	10:07
	varesa_ → varesa	10:19
	→ sidetrack joined	10:21
	→ LearnAllTheTime joined	10:22
	← Garen left	10:24
	→ sauvin joined	10:24
	← sidetrack left	10:25
	→ Garen joined	10:26
	← BeerLover left	10:38
	→ BeerLove_ joined	10:39
	← stux\|RC left	10:39
	→ gxt joined	10:42
	← Parse left	10:49
	← roadie left	10:53
	→ GreyArea joined	10:56
GreyArea	Hi there, I've got myself all confuzzled with git and wonder if anyone can help unconfuzzle me. https://paste.centos.org/view/3568ff89	10:58
	In the above paste I've got two origin/master's and not sure why	10:58
osse	GreyArea: run git for-each-ref \| grep master	10:59
	GreyArea: my guess: you have origin/master as usual, as well as a local branch whose name is actually "origin/master"	10:59
	← Anthaas left	10:59
osse	aka. le confuse xdddd	10:59
Stummi	(lately I found a repo which has a branch called "HEAD")	11:00
	→ Anthaas joined	11:00
cdunklau	Stummi: oh god	11:01
	→ stux\|RC joined	11:01
	→ enoq joined	11:01
GreyArea	osse: https://paste.centos.org/view/c15a4662	11:01
Stummi	I am wondering if this can happen with simple mistyping a command? You would have to tell git to not translate HEAD into anything, wouldn't you?	11:01
cdunklau	Stummi: how'd you do that	11:01
GreyArea	osse: Right, yeah probably I made a typo somewhere :\|	11:01
cdunklau	Stummi: i mean, git checkout -b HEAD	11:01
	fatal: 'HEAD' is not a valid branch name.	11:01
Stummi	cdunklau, thats what I am wondering	11:01
osse	GreyArea: git branch -d origin/master	11:02
	shouldn't be a problem	11:02
cdunklau	Stummi: where do you see this branch	11:02
Stummi	cdunklau, its a private repo on github	11:02
cdunklau	Stummi: no i mean how did you find out it has a branch named HEAD	11:02
Stummi	its listed by the github UI in the branches	11:03
cdunklau	lol	11:03
GreyArea	osse: Ah, that looks cleaner now - thanks man :)	11:03
osse	git update-ref refs/heads/HEAD abc1234whatever	11:03
Stummi	cdunklau, okay, just tried it. git push -u origin master:HEAD does this: https://github.com/Stummi/sandbox/tree/HEAD	11:04
GreyArea	so I'm at "28c5db7 (HEAD -> master, origin/master) Updating READMD.md	11:05
	but git update-ref refs/heads/HEAD 28c5db7 gives me not a valid sha1 error - is that what you meant by abcwhatever?	11:05
	but it looks OK, to me at least.	11:06
cdunklau	Stummi: huh	11:07
osse	GreyArea: my command was just to show a way to create a branch named HEAD. Don't actually do it :P	11:08
	As for the error, for update-ref you have to give it the full 40 character sha1	11:09
cdunklau	Stummi: that... looks like the bug	11:09
osse	update-ref ain't having any of your abbreviated shit	11:09
cdunklau	*a bug	11:09
Moongoodgirl	does update-ref validate the hash that you give it?	11:12
	← is_null left	11:13
grawity	update-ref accepts unambiguous abbrevs just fine	11:13
	← g00s left	11:14
	→ is_null joined	11:14
osse	you are right	11:16
	Moongoodgirl: seems to, yes.	11:17
	← bvdw left	11:18
	→ bvdw joined	11:19
	← TomyLobo left	11:32
	← zulutango left	11:32
	heftig_ → heftig	11:37
	→ kreyren joined	11:40
	→ rardiol joined	11:42
GreyArea	osse: Right, got it and done, thanks again	11:44
	→ lain98 joined	11:47
	→ monr0e joined	11:47
	← enoq left	11:48
	→ cousteau joined	12:02
	← cousteau left	12:04
lavalike	is it possible to go back a couple commits and change 1 thing, without screwing up times and dates for historic purposes? (used add -p wrong and ended up with a repetition I just noticed)	12:06
	→ dviola joined	12:07
Stummi	lavalike, easiest to do this is with interactive rebase	12:07
	→ bsanford joined	12:07
lavalike	I know you can do an interactive rebase to remove/squash/reorder commits, didn't know it supported editing them?	12:08
Stummi	lavalike, make your small fix as a normal commit, then type git rebase "<ref>" to your old commit, place your latest commit right after this and mark it with "f"	12:08
lavalike	oh that's genius!	12:08
	you add the modification, and slide it in place, wow (:	12:08
	→ T_UNIX joined	12:08
osse	there is even a flag for commit to make it easier	12:09
	← beastDiv_ left	12:09
osse	git commit --fixup <commit that needs fixing>	12:09
	then git rebase --autosquash	12:09
lavalike	that only works right at the tip of a branch or did I misunderstand you	12:10
davve	osse: that's an awesome command	12:10
lavalike	hm I think I see you give it hash of the one you would slide on top with rebase -i	12:10
osse	davve: correct!	12:10
	lavalike: oui	12:10
lavalike	so it basically says: this technique is so awesome I'll make a command out of it	12:11
	I approve	12:11
	← mikami left	12:12
Stummi	cdunklau, sorry for the delay. Do you think its a bug in git or github?	12:13
	← gloomy left	12:14
_ikke_	Inconceivable! :P	12:14
cdunklau	Stummi: i would expect git to reject that	12:14
	but i'm probably naive :)	12:14
Stummi	cdunklau, well, git does some measures to avoid a branch named "HEAD" created but fails to do so in other situations. So its at least inconsistent	12:15
	← feriman left	12:15
cdunklau	Stummi: right. i suspect the fiddly bit is in how <dst> is handled by git push	12:16
Stummi	technically, theres probably nothing wrong with a "HEAD" branch. It probably just "confuses" some git commands :)	12:16
	→ gloomy joined	12:16
cdunklau	Stummi: looks like `git branch HEAD` does `git check-ref-format --branch HEAD`, which fails	12:18
	but `git push` doesn't... and it doesn't look like it's just github that accepts that, i just testing pushing to a bare repo locally and it worked... the bare repo has refs/heads/HEAD now	12:23
	→ coco joined	12:24
	→ androi joined	12:25
androi	hi, I would like to pull a request but the button isn't showing instead it's displaying this message: "Able to merge. These branches can be automatically merged."what do i have to do?	12:25
	→ Raging_Hog joined	12:26
cdunklau	androi: probably ask somewhere related to github :)	12:26
	!github	12:26
gitinfo	GitHub is a !3rdparty commercial service offering freemium !hosting services for repositories & projects. https://github.com/features	12:26
cdunklau	hm	12:26
	¯\_(ツ)_/¯	12:26
	i'm sure there's a factoid for that	12:26
androi	yeah but they are all sleeping or just ignoring me ^^	12:27
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	12:29
nedbat	androi: what do you mean, "pull a request"? Do you mean merge a pull request?	12:30
androi	i m not sure either.. it's a fork repository and when i've done my changes i have to press a button "pull request"	12:32
	→ roadie joined	12:33
_ikke_	androi: are you the one making the pull request, or the one needing to merge it?	12:33
	← igemnace left	12:33
nedbat	androi: i guess it isn't clear what you are looking at exactly. GitHub has really good help about the way to do things: https://help.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-issues-and-pull-requests/about-pull-requests	12:33
	← gxt left	12:34
androi	I am the one who is initiating a pull request if that was the question	12:34
	→ oatmealraisin joined	12:35
_ikke_	androi: then you most likely don't have permission to merge it	12:35
androi	but the button is missing, so i'm not able to do it.. did the owner maybe not merge my last pull request?	12:35
	→ gxt joined	12:36
	→ TheFuzzball joined	12:36
androi	ok thx	12:36
nedbat	androi: that wouldn't matter.	12:36
androi	how do i get the current version of the fork repository? pull/ fetch origin master?	12:37
	← crose left	12:37
	→ crose joined	12:38
	cyberanger_ → cyberanger	12:39
	cyberanger → ZachGibbens	12:39
	← gxt left	12:42
	← roadie left	12:43
	← androi left	12:44
	ztrawhcse → elibrokeit	12:48
	← planetcall\|work left	12:49
	→ planetcall\|work joined	12:49
	→ settermjd joined	13:01
	→ Sonicbit joined	13:02
settermjd	hey folks, I’ve created a patch file using git diff branch1…branch2 — <path/to/file> > file.patch but am unable to apply it using git apply, as it fails with „patch does not apply“. Just wondering if there is something special about the git diff command wrt patch files.	13:03
	→ dionysus70 joined	13:03
_ikke_	settermjd: try git apply -3	13:03
settermjd	Thanks.	13:03
	← Sonicbit left	13:03
_ikke_	settermjd: git apply by default assumes it will apply cleanly	13:03
settermjd	Ah, gotcha. Thanks _ikke_.	13:04
	→ enoq joined	13:04
settermjd	There were conflicts, but it seems to have done most of the work now. :-)	13:05
	← dionysus69 left	13:05
	dionysus70 → dionysus69	13:05
	→ ExeciN joined	13:06
	→ def_jam joined	13:08
	→ eb0t_ joined	13:08
	← ExeciN left	13:09
	← eblip left	13:09
	← eb0t left	13:10
	← gloomy left	13:12
	→ mikami joined	13:15
	→ roadie joined	13:19
	← iz16 left	13:21
	← dionysus69 left	13:23
	→ iz16 joined	13:24
	→ Darcidride joined	13:25
	← breakingsad left	13:25
	← Darcidride left	13:29
	→ dionysus69 joined	13:30
	← jrun left	13:30
	→ Sonicbit joined	13:34
	→ prepend joined	13:45
	→ Noti joined	13:46
	← SteffanW left	13:46
Moongoodgirl	lavalike: You can also do an interactive rebase, change the `pick` of the commit with the mistake to `edit`, run the rebase, fix it, amend, and then continue	13:46
	…which…sounds more complicated than it feels, and sounds more complicated than the other methods >.>;	13:47
	of course, all of these rewrite history, so !rewrite	13:47
gitinfo	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	13:47
	→ Telerophon joined	13:48
	→ Darcidride joined	13:49
	→ fahadash joined	13:53
	→ mowcat joined	13:55
	← apoos_maximus left	13:56
	→ mario-vimal joined	14:02
	→ lucasb joined	14:06
	← Darcidride left	14:07
	→ Darcidride joined	14:07
	← macaronus left	14:09
	→ Siecje joined	14:13
	← mario-vimal left	14:13
	→ sp00nf0rk joined	14:14
Siecje	I have a branch with a few commits that adds a new class to the code. I'm trying to rebase on master but I get a merge conflict. In a three way diff I can see the class in each version. Why is that?	14:14
osse	Siecje: git rebase managed to apply one commit, but not a subsequent one maybe?	14:15
Siecje	How do I combine commits before rebase?	14:15
penguu	how do i keep track of what changes between production and staging environment?	14:15
	i understand i remove the git repo from production	14:16
osse	in a rebase the sides of the conflict are just the the state so far versus the upcoming commit	14:16
	Siecje: an interactive rebase will do the trick. mark commits fixup/squash	14:16
	git rebase -i master	14:16
Siecje	I'll try that.	14:16
penguu	if i want to get a copy of the production back to work on, do i just overwrite the directory with the production files?	14:16
Siecje	osse: I end up with the same merge conflict.	14:18
osse	then maybe some of that class is already in master and jsut jsut forgot about it	14:19
	i dunno	14:19
	← sp00nf0rk left	14:19
Siecje	It's not.	14:21
	I'll just resolve the merge conflict.	14:21
	→ figuinhas joined	14:22
	→ apoos_maximus joined	14:23
osse	I would be curious to see git log -p afterwards	14:23
	← zumba_addict left	14:24
lavalike	I forget what is the manpage that explains the syntax for things like name@{u} or name^ and ^name and ^name^	14:25
grawity	man gitrevisions	14:25
gitinfo	the gitrevisions manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/gitrevisions.html	14:25
lavalike	appreciate it	14:27
	← oatmealraisin left	14:30
	→ mark4 joined	14:32
mark4	so i just created a tag but want to change it, can i rename a tag?	14:32
	i did not push	14:32
	git tag -a zzz -m "zzz" i just want to change it	14:32
grawity	just delete and create it again	14:33
mark4	how do you delete it?	14:35
grawity	git tag -d	14:35
	← mark4 left	14:35
	→ mark4 joined	14:36
	← mark4 left	14:36
	→ gxt joined	14:37
	→ Shentino_ joined	14:37
	← royal_screwup21 left	14:38
	→ dunpeal joined	14:38
	→ mark4 joined	14:39
dunpeal	Are there any interesting VCS ideas beyond DAG?	14:39
mark4	grawity, ty for the help i keep getting disconnected	14:39
grawity	darcs?	14:39
dunpeal	grawity: what's interesting about DARCS?	14:39
mark4	im doing wifi tether through phone to be here, cant get on via works network :)	14:39
	← mark4 left	14:40
	→ truthseeker_ joined	14:40
osse	Fossil is pretty different	14:40
	https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki	14:40
	→ relipse joined	14:40
relipse	I have a fork which is remote origin and I have another repo abc, how do I make the fork up to date with abc?	14:41
dunpeal	GIT: Sprawling, incoherent, and inefficient	14:41
	FOSSIL: Self-contained and efficient	14:41
	Very objective analysis.	14:41
osse	relipse: git remote add upstream {url here}; git fetch upstream; then rebase or merge or whatever you want	14:41
	← Shentino left	14:42
pandem1	dunpeal: Keep in mind that you are reading this on a Fossil website, and though we try to be fair, the information here might be biased in favor of Fossil, if only because we spend most of our time using Fossil, not Git.	14:42
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	14:42
Moongoodgirl	Fossil is based on sqlite	14:42
	I dunno that that's a /good/ thing	14:43
pandem1	based on?	14:43
Moongoodgirl	apparently, according to that comparison thing	14:43
	→ SteffanW joined	14:43
Moongoodgirl	having things be flat files makes it easier to hack them if ever you should need to	14:43
pandem1	oh yeah, i know it was created for managing sqlite but not sure if it actually used it	14:43
dunpeal	osse, pandem1: what specific ideas are innovative in Fossil? from what I can tell, it just has a few extra features (like managing a wiki)	14:43
relipse	osse: do I use merge or rebase or does it matter?	14:44
	← Noti left	14:44
Moongoodgirl	if a git repository gets corrupt, you can maybe dig into the plumbing and fix it	14:44
	← BeerLove_ left	14:44
osse	relipse: a matter of opinion. if you're not sure, go for rebase	14:44
Moongoodgirl	if a fossil sqlite database gets corrupted…	14:44
osse	dunpeal: I don't really know. Haven't used it much	14:44
pandem1	afaik the concept of branch makes more sense in fossil but i never used it either	14:44
relipse	thanks osse that worked!	14:44
	← bytefire left	14:44
dunpeal	pandem1: how so?	14:45
	btw, hg also has a slightly different concept of branch, but imho it actually just complicates things compared to git	14:45
_ikke_	hg has several concepts for branches	14:45
dunpeal	overall neither hg or bzr add any interesting ideas to the core idea of DAG in git	14:46
	_ikke_: just two: branches and bookmarks	14:46
pandem1	Unlike in Git, branch names in Fossil are not purely local labels. They sync along with everything else, so everyone sees the same set of branch names.	14:46
	and i think branches are also visible after merging, so what was done in what branch for example	14:46
dunpeal	pandem1: in what sense are branches in git "purely local"?	14:47
pandem1	git branches aren't really intuitive anyway	14:47
osse	I suppose you could define four broad categories: Git and git-like, darcs, fossil, and the rest (svn, cvs, etc.)	14:47
pandem1	idk, thats from the fossil website	14:47
dunpeal	"i think branches are also visible after merging" -> sounds like Hg branches	14:47
	osse: DARCS and Fossil should have a ton of different fundamental ideas to be their own categories	14:48
pandem1	if you want to hear the opinion of fossil creators then read the link	14:48
dunpeal	pandem1: yeah, I'm skimming the page, and I see some interesting features though nothing groundbreaking	14:48
	→ howdoi joined	14:49
dunpeal	osse: what core ideas does DARCS introduce?	14:49
pandem1	i think the point that git may not be the best VCS for most projects makes sense	14:49
	and git definitely is not intuitive to use	14:50
dunpeal	I disagree with the latter for sure :)	14:50
	→ g4570n joined	14:50
dunpeal	if you are versed in basic graph theory (and as a programmer, you should be) Git is the most intuitive of all VCSes	14:50
osse	dunpeal: seems to me that DARCS completely forgoes the DAG approach, and rather considers the hgistory to be a bunch of patches that can both be seen as a set AND as a sequence of patches	14:50
pandem1	i'm fairly capable of using it by now, but every time i see my colleagues using git i think of that	14:51
osse	it just sounds completely different to me	14:51
dunpeal	pandem1: most users just never bothered to learn Git properly	14:51
pandem1	because it is difficult to use	14:51
dunpeal	osse: history*?	14:52
osse	yes	14:52
	← mikami left	14:52
dunpeal	osse: interesting, if it's not DAG based then yes, it's different.	14:52
	→ SerialSmile joined	14:53
dunpeal	I guess patch-based vs snapshot-based is a fairly fundamental idea.	14:53
	← SteffanW left	14:53
	← bsanford left	14:53
	→ aesthetik joined	14:53
	→ bsanford joined	14:54
dunpeal	OK, I think I'm starting to get it.	14:54
	It just creates a dependency hierarchy between patches.	14:54
	And all you have in the repo is patches.	14:54
	So the repo is a set of patches, partially ordered.	14:55
	Neat, though will lead to obvious performance problems.	14:55
	e.g. evey time you you look at a particular patch, you may have to walk the tree back to its root to get the snapshot it creates.	14:56
	Avoiding this is exactly why git is snapshot-based.	14:56
	→ sevagh joined	14:57
dunpeal	Exporting/importing patches should be easier though.	14:57
	← Siecje left	14:58
	← deltab left	14:58
sevagh	i'm having trouble with `git branch -r --merged master `. in some of my git checkouts, this returns different lists of branches (some branches missing, etc.). how can i investigate why? ideally i'd like all of my git checkouts to return the full set of results on master all the time	15:03
	→ greggerz joined	15:04
	→ deltab joined	15:08
	← settermjd left	15:09
	→ feriman joined	15:10
	→ Inline joined	15:11
	quesker_ → quesker	15:15
	→ sidetrack joined	15:16
	← quesker left	15:17
	← bsanford left	15:19
	→ bsanford joined	15:20
	← dviola left	15:21
	← greggerz left	15:22
	← bsanford left	15:22
	→ bsanford joined	15:23
	← Sleepy63 left	15:23
	→ oatmealraisin joined	15:25
	← sidetrack left	15:27
	→ sidetrack joined	15:27
	← dionysus69 left	15:29
	→ dionysus69 joined	15:30
	← sidetrack left	15:32
	← enoq left	15:33
	← dionysus69 left	15:34
	→ greggerz joined	15:35
	← omnireq_ left	15:37
	→ thiago joined	15:40
	→ gopper joined	15:43
	← sevagh left	15:44
	→ boombatower joined	15:47
	← TheFuzzball left	15:49
	← coco left	15:49
	→ TheFuzzball joined	15:51
	← bsanford left	15:52
	→ bsanford joined	15:53
	← dmc left	15:54
	← bsanford left	15:54
	→ bsanford joined	15:55
	← royal_screwup21 left	15:56
	← prepend left	15:56
	→ coco joined	15:57
	codedmart_ → codedmart	15:58
	← sQVe left	15:59
	← dunpeal left	15:59
	→ rsrx joined	16:00
	← shady_traveller left	16:00
	→ dmc joined	16:06
	← mobidrop left	16:07
	← rewt left	16:11
	→ rewt`` joined	16:11
	rewt`` → rewt	16:11
	→ jrun joined	16:13
jrun	is there a way to generate ordered patched from commits without the email headers?	16:13
penguu	how do iget my old file back	16:14
	i have a modified file in the staging area	16:14
	i want to reset it	16:14
	← hussam left	16:15
penguu	git checkout -- myfile.ext	16:16
	→ maryo_s joined	16:19
	→ omnireq joined	16:20
	← thiago left	16:24
	→ jaeckel joined	16:25
	→ sidetrack joined	16:26
	← TheFuzzball left	16:27
	→ jubalh joined	16:28
jubalh	How would I get git diff to display me the difference of the current branch to when it was forked from master (and not current master) ?	16:28
	← oxymoron93 left	16:29
	← rfuentess__ left	16:30
	→ TheFuzzball joined	16:32
	← Phylock left	16:32
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	16:32
	← planetcall\|work left	16:35
	← chele left	16:35
	← mowcat left	16:36
	→ rostam joined	16:36
	→ mowcat joined	16:41
	→ settermjd joined	16:43
	LiENUX → LiENUS	16:44
	→ Phylock joined	16:46
	← tretinha left	16:46
	← milkt left	16:46
	← rsrx left	16:48
	← monr0e left	16:49
_ikke_	jubalh: git diff master...	16:51
	(including the 3 dots)	16:51
	← Love4Boobies left	16:52
	→ causasui joined	16:52
	← SerialSmile left	16:53
	← justanotheruser left	16:54
	→ BeerLover joined	16:57
	→ justanotheruser joined	16:58
	← sidetrack left	16:58
	epoll → syr	16:58
	→ Krematorium joined	17:00
	Krematorium → kremator	17:02
	← syr left	17:04
	← __salt left	17:05
	→ _salt joined	17:07
	← is_null left	17:09
	→ is_null joined	17:09
	← royal_screwup21 left	17:10
	← emsjessec left	17:12
	→ syr joined	17:12
	→ thiago joined	17:13
	→ mat001 joined	17:13
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	17:16
	← greggerz left	17:16
	← bvdw left	17:18
	→ ezio joined	17:19
	→ bvdw joined	17:19
ezio	how can I undo a commit that I just made, but keep the code that I committed to commit to another branch	17:19
_ikke_	2 approaches: copy the commit and reset the branch, or reset the changes to float them to the other branch	17:20
ezio	oh god I really messed up	17:20
_ikke_	ezio: can you elaborate?	17:21
ezio	just merge into a new branch?	17:21
	and then reset hard?	17:21
_ikke_	ezio: cherry-pick	17:21
ezio	If I branch from here ... It'll be a new branch I think	17:21
	Yeah.	17:21
_ikke_	ezio: do you still need to create the new branch?	17:21
ezio	I'll branch and push the new branch, switch back and hard reset?	17:22
	ugh. Why do I always do this.	17:22
	k pushed the new branch	17:23
	← stux\|RC left	17:23
ezio	oh thank god	17:24
	thank you	17:24
_ikke_	You did most if it yourself :)	17:25
	→ stux\|RC joined	17:25
	\u → meowray	17:27
	→ wadadli joined	17:30
	→ greggerz joined	17:30
	← maryo_s left	17:31
	→ hussam joined	17:32
	← TheFuzzball left	17:32
	← mat001 left	17:35
	← royal_screwup21 left	17:35
	→ mat001 joined	17:35
	→ wootehfoot joined	17:38
	→ sidetrack joined	17:38
	← crose left	17:40
	→ omnireq_ joined	17:41
	← settermjd left	17:42
	→ matsaman joined	17:42
	← sidetrack left	17:44
	← omnireq left	17:45
	moviuro_ → moviuro	17:46
	→ maryo joined	17:47
	→ prepend joined	17:48
	← KeyJoo left	17:49
	→ durham joined	17:50
	→ dionysus69 joined	17:52
	→ matsaman_ joined	17:56
	← matsaman left	17:57
	→ DanteD joined	17:59
	→ davispuh joined	17:59
	← akem__ left	18:00
	→ akemhp joined	18:00
DanteD	I'm using git to develop but now I want to make a public repository.. can I somehow hide all private dev commits from public ones?	18:00
relipse	no you might as well start fresh over	18:01
selckin	only if you remove them	18:01
mmattice	DanteD: squash them all?	18:01
DanteD	but so am I supposed to make only publish quality commits if I want have public repository?	18:01
	I can easily start a new repo	18:02
mmattice	why does it matter if you publish only quality commits?	18:02
	are you not human?	18:02
avu	DanteD: if you're concerned about master always being usable/stable, don't develop on master	18:02
DanteD	mmattice: hmm. I guess it might be ok	18:03
mmattice	or write tests that keep you from breaking.	18:03
	← lacrymology left	18:05
	→ dijitol joined	18:06
	→ gareppa joined	18:10
	→ kerframil joined	18:14
	← multiproc left	18:16
	← dionysus69 left	18:16
jubalh	_ikke_: thanks!	18:17
	matsaman_ → matsaman	18:17
_ikke_	np	18:17
matsaman	I remember a situation in the past where I needed to use 'git log -r' to see information missing from plain 'git log'	18:17
	right now I'm noticing I need 'git log -m'	18:18
	is there an overlap? Should I just always use git log -m -r both?	18:18
	really don't understand why the default 'git log' hides many things	18:18
selckin	such as?	18:19
matsaman	such as any changes made from any commits from a 'merge commit'	18:19
	→ rafasc joined	18:20
matsaman	if I trusted the commit messages, I wouldn't need to scrutinize the actual changes made	18:21
	but obviously I don't, so why would I get the changes part of the time and only the message part of the time, I don't understand the rationale	18:21
	is there a command I should be using other than git log -m -p?	18:23
	like git log-that-doesnt-play-games ?	18:23
selckin	guess you want --graph -p	18:23
	← figuinhas left	18:24
	← gareppa left	18:24
	← DanteD left	18:24
matsaman	that appears to include what I want because it uses --topo-order	18:25
	the man page's explanation of '-m' is very straightforward, though	18:26
	it appears to serve a singular purpose: to not omit that which is by default omitted	18:26
selckin	then make an alias and be happy	18:26
matsaman	I'm not happy with magic	18:26
	and I still don't know when to use -r vs -m	18:26
	→ ferdna joined	18:26
selckin	subversion still exists, nice linear history no mather what	18:27
	← ezio left	18:27
nkuttler	i recently found my long lost cvs repos on an ancient laptop ide disk <3	18:28
matsaman	it doesn't need to be linear, it needs to not be pretending things didn't happen	18:28
	→ lacrymology joined	18:28
matsaman	I wonder if when I used -r in the past it was with git diff	18:29
	→ parse joined	18:29
	→ AtumT joined	18:29
matsaman	or something using git diff-tree	18:30
	← BeerLover left	18:31
	← andreas303 left	18:33
	← Darcidride left	18:33
	→ Nozzzle joined	18:34
	← Nozzzle left	18:36
	← T_UNIX left	18:37
	→ andreas303 joined	18:37
selckin	compare the output on the kernel repo & compare with gitk	18:37
	then you'll start to understand	18:37
	most repos don't really use merges heavily enough to notice	18:38
robertparkerx	How can I make it so I don't have to `git pull origin master` and just `git pull`	18:38
_ikke_	robertparkerx: git branch --set-upstream-to origin/master master	18:39
	→ dionysus69 joined	18:39
matsaman	I understand it's different, what I don't understand is why	18:39
robertparkerx	Sweet! Thank you _ikke_	18:39
	→ duderonomy joined	18:40
	← mowcat left	18:40
	← roadie left	18:42
	→ roadie joined	18:42
	→ mowcat joined	18:43
	← rewt left	18:43
	→ rewt`` joined	18:43
	rewt`` → rewt	18:43
	cjohnson_ → cjohnson	18:45
	→ leeN joined	18:45
	← truthseeker_ left	18:46
	← LearnAllTheTime left	18:55
	→ settermjd joined	19:01
	jan61 → jan6	19:05
	→ n2o joined	19:07
	→ multiproc joined	19:08
	← Graypup_ left	19:08
	← rostam left	19:11
	→ yunk joined	19:11
	yunk → H2Q	19:11
	→ g00s joined	19:12
	← demize left	19:16
	→ TheFuzzball joined	19:18
	→ demize joined	19:19
	← Raging_Hog left	19:21
	→ iam730 joined	19:23
	→ seni joined	19:26
seni	I just did a git reset --hard origin/master when I shouldnt have. thought that branch had what I wanted I was wrong. any way of recovering?	19:26
selckin	!reflog	19:27
gitinfo	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.	19:27
seni	actually it was because I had the wrong window open lol	19:27
matsaman	yeah you only need a commit to reference to get back	19:28
seni	thanks	19:29
	→ apoos_maximus_ joined	19:29
	→ owlscientist joined	19:29
	← TheFuzzball left	19:31
	← apoos_maximus left	19:33
	→ TheFuzzball joined	19:34
	← gopper left	19:35
	→ Sasazuka joined	19:36
	→ sidetrack joined	19:38
	← sidetrack left	19:43
	← TheFuzzball left	19:44
	← lmat left	19:45
	← owlscientist left	19:45
	← akemhp left	19:46
	← j7k6 left	19:46
	→ j7k6 joined	19:47
	← n2o left	19:48
	← YuGiOhJCJ left	19:48
	← fflam left	19:52
	← Hello71 left	19:53
	→ Hello71 joined	19:59
	← relipse left	20:01
	→ owlscientist joined	20:08
	← g00s left	20:08
	→ lmat joined	20:13
	← maryo left	20:18
	← howdoi left	20:20
j416	seni: not if you had uncommitted changes, but otherwise you can just do the same back to whatever commit you were on before. (the reflog will tell you that if you forgot)	20:20
	← matsaman left	20:20
	→ m0viefreak joined	20:20
	← Celelibi left	20:21
	→ Lucas_Gray joined	20:25
	→ TheFuzzball joined	20:25
	← apoos_maximus_ left	20:26
	→ apoos_maximus_ joined	20:26
	→ Fernando-Basso joined	20:27
	← TheFuzzball left	20:28
	→ monr0e joined	20:28
	→ limarfrek joined	20:31
	← shored1 left	20:32
	← kerframil left	20:34
	→ shored joined	20:35
	→ sidetrack joined	20:37
	→ Jitta joined	20:38
	← limarfrek left	20:39
	← sidetrack left	20:41
	→ TheFuzzball joined	20:48
	→ crose joined	20:48
	← H2Q left	20:48
	→ ttl joined	20:49
	← TheFuzzball left	20:51
cjohnson	I hate repos full of merges :(	20:53
	But people are scared about rebases	20:53
	→ raymond joined	20:57
rafasc	I hate repos full of rebases that throw away context information.	20:59
	and I hate that people think that they need to choose to use either merge or rebase, when the real strength is using both.	21:00
_ikke_	I hate repos that take any if these at extrems :)	21:00
	extremes	21:00
	← brettgilio left	21:03
cjohnson	I would be curious to see an example repo where the merges provided any valuable context	21:03
	The way I've always worked, they provide nothing of value whatsoever	21:03
	→ synx joined	21:04
cjohnson	And they screw with the idea of binary artifacts, making it harder to determine if the artifact you are using is "latest" or not	21:04
	→ brettgilio joined	21:04
	← brettgilio left	21:04
	→ sidetrack joined	21:04
cjohnson	The binary gets produced on the branch and tagged with teh git sha. In a rebase strategy, the binary gets tested and promoted to the production binary, retaining the same sha, which will match the latest sha in the master branch	21:05
	→ jaziz joined	21:07
	→ brettgilio joined	21:07
_ikke_	cjohnson: that's only one possible workflow, and not the most typical uses of branching / merging	21:08
rafasc	in fact, that workflow essentially throws away the idea of "branches", as nothing can really branch-out.	21:09
	← sidetrack left	21:09
_ikke_	!gitflow	21:09
gitinfo	The description of the gitflow branch workflow model is at http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ while a tool to help implement this workflow is at https://github.com/petervanderdoes/gitflow See http://sethrobertson.github.com/GitBestPractices/#workflow for other workflow suggestions/references	21:09
_ikke_	!githubflow	21:09
gitinfo	[!github_flow] This is the workflow followed by github: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html	21:09
	← settermjd left	21:09
rafasc	cjohnson: what happens when you have a branch with a binary tagged, and someone else pushes to master before you?	21:10
	there's no way to do it without changing the commit hashes.	21:11
	← AtumT left	21:11
	→ akemhp joined	21:18
	→ akemhp_ joined	21:19
	← akemhp_ left	21:19
	← grumble left	21:26
	→ gurmble joined	21:27
	← Phylock left	21:27
	← dionysus69 left	21:28
	→ dionysus69 joined	21:28
	gurmble → grumble	21:28
	→ xkr47 joined	21:30
	→ sp00nf0rk joined	21:32
	← ttl left	21:33
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	21:35
	← Lucas_Gray left	21:37
	← sp00nf0rk left	21:40
	← daurnimator left	21:41
	→ Phylock joined	21:41
	← roadie left	21:43
	→ bambanx joined	21:45
	→ Celelibi joined	21:46
	→ daurnimator joined	21:46
	← brettgilio left	21:48
	Hoffman → Highba11	21:52
	← gavlee left	21:52
	Highba11 → Hoffman	21:53
	→ zulutango joined	21:53
	← royal_screwup21 left	21:54
	← daurnimator left	21:55
	→ daurnimator joined	22:08
	← multiproc left	22:08
	fructose0 → fructose	22:09
	← greggerz left	22:10
	← prepend left	22:13
	← feriman left	22:14
	← apetresc left	22:15
	← BlackMaria left	22:15
	→ feriman joined	22:16
	→ apetresc joined	22:16
	← oatmealraisin left	22:16
	← crose left	22:17
	← owlscientist left	22:20
	→ mostlybadfly joined	22:21
	← feriman left	22:21
	→ feriman joined	22:21
	← coco left	22:22
	→ ethernether joined	22:23
	→ owlscientist joined	22:23
	← owlscientist left	22:23
	← jan6 left	22:24
	← level3 left	22:25
	→ owlscientist joined	22:26
	← owlscientist left	22:27
	← j7k6 left	22:27
	← mat001 left	22:27
	→ jan6 joined	22:27
	→ greggerz joined	22:28
	← Jitta left	22:29
	→ mat001 joined	22:30
	← jcbitter left	22:31
	→ Sonicbit_ joined	22:31
	→ level3 joined	22:31
	← Sonicbit left	22:32
	→ j7k6 joined	22:38
	← Phylock left	22:39
	→ mikecmpbll joined	22:40
	← wootehfoot left	22:44
	→ Sleepy63 joined	22:45
	← cdown left	22:45
	→ cdown joined	22:46
	← shicks2525 left	22:48
	→ shicks2525 joined	22:50
	← dijitol left	22:50
	→ sidetrack joined	22:54
	→ oatmealraisin joined	22:55
	← ethernether left	22:56
	← thiago left	22:57
	← sidetrack left	22:59
	→ Mattiaslndstrm joined	23:00
	netmonk → hegemoOn	23:01
	← Mattiaslndstrm left	23:02
	← level3 left	23:04
	→ sidetrack joined	23:05
	← CalimeroTeknik left	23:09
	→ royal_screwup21 joined	23:11
	→ jelmer joined	23:13
	← sidetrack left	23:13
	→ sidetrack joined	23:13
	← bvdw left	23:18
	← wodim left	23:18
	→ wodim joined	23:19
	→ bvdw joined	23:19
	← greggerz left	23:19
	← Fernando-Basso left	23:22
	→ level3 joined	23:22
	→ kerframil joined	23:25
	← oatmealraisin left	23:26
	→ brettgilio joined	23:26
	← d^sh_ left	23:28
	← kremator left	23:37
	→ BlackMaria joined	23:44
	→ oatmealraisin joined	23:45
	→ thiago joined	23:47
	← leeN left	23:49
	← tgunr left	23:51
	→ howdoi joined	23:53
	→ bremner` joined	23:55
	← lmat left	23:57
	→ thomasross_ joined	23:59
	thomasross → Guest34522	23:59
	← Guest34522 left	23:59
	thomasross_ → thomasross	23:59

Logs Search ←Prev date Next date→

Channels Documentation