IRCloggy #git 2022-04-06

Provider of IRC logs since 2005.

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

	2022-04-06
	← causa_sui left	00:01
parsnip	https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-commands/more	00:01
	→ Xenguy joined	00:01
	→ rgrinberg joined	00:01
shailangsa	going to use git bash as that resolves the issue though	00:01
parsnip	i would avoid cmd.exe, i thought PowerShell is the future on Windows	00:02
	→ causa_sui joined	00:02
Gustavo6046	wait, windows has a future?	00:02
parsnip	poor choice of words :-P	00:03
	← epony left	00:03
	→ chenqisu1 joined	00:03
Gustavo6046	you sure?	00:03
	:P	00:03
	i think the Windows market share might actually go down in the following years	00:04
	→ epony joined	00:04
Gustavo6046	but the details of that are a conversation for another channel	00:04
parsnip	one can dream	00:04
Gustavo6046	lol	00:04
parsnip	pros and cons	00:04
Gustavo6046	yeah true, they all have pros and cons	00:04
	it's hard to tell with linux because there are so many damn distros	00:05
	currently i'm using garuda	00:05
	← epony left	00:05
Gustavo6046	emphasis on I – it might not be the better choice for that many people	00:05
	→ duxsco joined	00:05
Gustavo6046	it's neat, i'd say it's like one of them easy-to-use derivates of arch linux, but without manjaro's quirks, and a few other interesting features on top	00:06
	it's far from perfect though, and honestly everything ever is	00:06
	← causa_sui left	00:06
	← mud left	00:08
	← gurkenglas left	00:13
	← pulse left	00:19
	→ causa_sui joined	00:29
	→ plugwash joined	00:32
plugwash	i'm trying to set up git clone and getweb access with apache, gitweb is working but git clone is not, apache seems to be ignoring the scriptaliasmatch directive and I've no clue why	00:33
	any idea how to debug this?	00:33
	→ geowiesnot joined	00:33
	← causa_sui left	00:33
	← geowiesnot left	00:43
plugwash	nm I was looking at the wrong logfile, the access log was just saying 404, but the error log had more info.	00:46
	→ causa_sui joined	00:52
	← vicfred left	00:55
	williewillus1 → williewillus	00:57
	← causa_sui left	00:58
	← MrMagic left	01:00
	← Yruama left	01:02
	→ pulse joined	01:07
	→ sa0 joined	01:09
	→ causa_sui joined	01:14
	← wonko-the-sane left	01:16
	← dermoth left	01:16
	→ vysn joined	01:18
	← causa_sui left	01:21
	→ wonko-the-sane joined	01:23
	→ causa_sui joined	01:25
	→ Jack_shat joined	01:29
	→ dermoth joined	01:29
	← Jack_shat left	01:30
	← wonko-the-sane left	01:31
	← causa_sui left	01:33
	← sa0 left	01:41
	← srinidhi left	01:42
	→ wonko-the-sane joined	01:43
	← jinsun left	01:44
	→ xiongxin joined	01:45
quartz	Hello. I'm still having this problem where I can't stop git from tracking my directory. I get this error: https://ibb.co/QcLZGvX	01:46
	I'm using the command git rm -r --cached but it's telling me the directory did not match any files.	01:46
	→ anaveragehuman joined	01:47
	→ Gustavo6046_ joined	01:48
	→ humanBird joined	01:48
	← Gustavo6046 left	01:50
	→ Pseudocrat joined	01:51
	→ epony joined	01:51
	← Gustavo6046_ left	01:51
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	01:51
	← fling left	01:54
	→ MrMagic joined	01:56
	→ fling joined	01:56
BSaboia	I have a branch which is already pushed. In this branch I accidentally pasted some credentials on a file that should not have them. The branch is mine. I cannot delete the file. What should I do in this case?	01:57
	→ Gustavo6046_ joined	02:00
	← junktext left	02:01
	← Gustavo6046 left	02:01
	← Gustavo6046_ left	02:01
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	02:02
mackerman	BSaboia: Change the credentials, delete the old ones, and push the deletion to all known remotes	02:03
BSaboia	mackerman, they are not really credentials. It's my login. But I don't want it to be in the code, nor reflog. So I cannot really change it	02:05
mackerman	Secrets that have been git add-ed are compromised.	02:06
	← vysn left	02:07
	← xiongxin left	02:08
	→ xiongxin joined	02:08
	→ mud joined	02:09
mackerman	You can edit history and purge all known references if you like. I still consider such secrets comprmised and should be changed.	02:09
	← quartz left	02:09
BSaboia	mackerman, I cannot really change my login. It's my private email. I just didn't want it to be accessible in this company's (private) repo. But not super relevant	02:11
mackerman	Only the email, not auth details? That is not credentials then.	02:11
	Email in some file's content, or author or committer email?	02:13
	The latter you can hide with man gitmailmap	02:13
gitinfo	the gitmailmap manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/gitmailmap.html	02:13
	→ gco joined	02:18
	← mannequin left	02:18
	← jimklimov left	02:19
	← relight left	02:21
	← Gustavo6046 left	02:22
	← humanBird left	02:24
	→ causa_sui joined	02:24
	→ kaiseisei joined	02:26
	← gco left	02:30
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	02:30
	← pulse left	02:30
	← Gustavo6046 left	02:32
	← coaxing left	02:32
	← causa_sui left	02:32
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	02:33
	→ jimklimov joined	02:33
	→ causa_sui joined	02:34
	→ xiongxin1 joined	02:36
	← xiongxin left	02:36
	xiongxin1 → xiongxin	02:36
	← causa_sui left	02:39
	← xiongxin left	02:53
	→ causa_sui joined	02:55
	← subopt left	02:56
	← fling left	02:59
	→ jclsn0 joined	03:00
	→ fling joined	03:00
	← bloody left	03:01
	← jclsn left	03:02
	← causa_sui left	03:03
	→ donofrio joined	03:06
	→ adhawkins_ joined	03:14
	← adhawkins left	03:15
	adhawkins_ → adhawkins	03:15
	← donofrio left	03:16
	← jkl left	03:17
	→ jkl joined	03:18
	→ xiongxin joined	03:26
BSaboia	mackerman, file's content	03:27
	← xiongxin left	03:36
	→ humanBird joined	03:37
	← jimklimov left	03:38
	→ sa0 joined	03:39
	← sudoforge left	03:43
	→ nosolls1 joined	03:50
	→ Xenguy_ joined	03:51
	→ hbautista joined	03:52
	← nosolls1 left	03:53
	← Xenguy left	03:54
	→ causa_sui joined	03:54
	← plugwash left	03:57
	→ saroy joined	03:58
	← travisghansen left	04:02
	← fling left	04:03
	← causa_sui left	04:03
	← splud left	04:04
	← tyson2 left	04:04
	→ travisghansen joined	04:04
	→ xiongxin joined	04:04
	→ fling joined	04:05
	← cdown left	04:06
	→ cdown joined	04:07
	← Murr left	04:07
	→ Murr joined	04:08
	→ The_Blode joined	04:10
	← sa0 left	04:11
	← rgrinberg left	04:14
	← cdown left	04:18
	← Gustavo6046 left	04:21
	→ splud joined	04:21
	← The_Blode left	04:23
	← analoq left	04:24
	→ rgrinberg joined	04:24
	← splud left	04:26
	→ analoq joined	04:26
	← gast0n left	04:27
	← xiongxin left	04:29
	→ cdown joined	04:33
	→ The_Blode joined	04:37
	→ splud joined	04:41
	← splud left	04:43
	→ splud joined	04:43
	→ jimklimov joined	04:50
	← seifeslimene left	04:51
	→ jimklimov1 joined	04:52
	← rgrinberg left	04:53
	→ causa_sui joined	04:54
	← jimklimov left	04:55
	→ madewokherd` joined	04:58
	← causa_sui left	04:58
	→ causa_sui joined	04:59
	← madewokherd left	05:00
	→ c4017_ joined	05:02
	← ChmEarl left	05:02
	← causa_sui left	05:04
	← c4017 left	05:05
	← fling left	05:07
	→ fling joined	05:08
	← hbautista left	05:09
	→ vanessa joined	05:17
	→ jinsun joined	05:19
	← zebrag left	05:22
	← thiago left	05:22
	→ jusski joined	05:28
	→ vysn joined	05:29
	← bindu left	05:32
jusski	i am executing	05:33
	git checkout main -- some_file	05:33
	but im still seeing it in	05:33
	git diff --name-only main	05:33
	what i am doing wrong?	05:33
	→ bindu joined	05:34
jusski	no changes in staged	05:35
parsnip	what are the changes? merge conflict?	05:36
	> The index may contain unmerged entries because of a previous failed merge. By default, if you try to check out such an entry from the index, the checkout operation will fail and nothing will be checked out. Using -f will ignore these unmerged entries.	05:37
	-- https://git-scm.com/docs/git-checkout	05:37
	damn, as complicated as git is, the documentation is pretty good	05:39
	← great_taste left	05:39
jusski	git merge main writes already up to date	05:44
	→ xiongxin joined	05:45
jusski	oh my bad, this file does not exists in main branch	05:47
	somebody moved it to another folder	05:47
parsnip	dang, i'm not so good at diagnosing	05:49
	→ mannequin joined	05:53
	← jimklimov1 left	05:55
	→ walterwhip joined	05:55
	→ _9pfs joined	05:55
	→ roadie joined	05:56
	→ kenanmarasli joined	05:59
	→ causa_sui joined	05:59
	→ mexen joined	06:00
	← anaveragehuman left	06:03
	← causa_sui left	06:04
	← xiongxin left	06:06
	← Murr left	06:07
	→ Murr joined	06:07
	→ anaveragehuman joined	06:08
	→ Sh4dowmonk joined	06:09
	→ causa_sui joined	06:09
	→ mattil joined	06:12
	bkircher_afk → bkircher	06:12
	← causa_sui left	06:14
	→ _vanessa_ joined	06:14
	_vanessa_ → vanesaa	06:16
	← vanessa left	06:17
	→ _vanessa_ joined	06:18
	→ otisolsen70 joined	06:19
	← vanesaa left	06:21
	→ szymon joined	06:23
	→ xiongxin joined	06:23
	← szymon left	06:24
	→ ^vanessa^ joined	06:24
	→ causa_sui joined	06:25
	→ duxco joined	06:25
	← duxsco left	06:26
	duxco → duxsco	06:26
	→ EvilDMP joined	06:26
	← _vanessa_ left	06:27
	→ _vanessa_ joined	06:27
	← ^vanessa^ left	06:30
	← causa_sui left	06:34
	→ palasso joined	06:38
	← xiongxin left	06:40
	→ jimklimov joined	06:42
	→ coot joined	06:44
	← jimklimov left	06:46
	→ TheCatBehemoth joined	06:46
	→ srinidhi joined	06:51
	→ sondr3 joined	06:54
	→ dionysus69 joined	06:55
	→ causa_sui joined	06:59
	← Sh4dowmonk left	07:02
	← causa_sui left	07:04
	→ feriman joined	07:08
	← Misotauros left	07:09
thomas25	I've created a branch from master. I've also checked out the master (M1) at this point. I've added a single file to branch and merged it back to master. Now, I've also made some modifications to M1. How do I push the changes I've made? (the master at the remote origin is now ahead of my local copy)	07:09
	← _9pfs left	07:10
	← fling left	07:10
	→ _9pfs joined	07:11
	← duxsco left	07:12
	← _9pfs left	07:12
	→ fling joined	07:13
	→ _9pfs joined	07:13
	→ iomari891 joined	07:13
	→ Sh4dowmonk joined	07:14
	← skapata left	07:15
cbreak	thomas25: merge or rebase	07:15
	→ a1eaiactaest joined	07:16
cbreak	or create a new branch and push that	07:16
thomas25	yeah i've followed the hints git gives me but i wish this was more intuitive, still feels like walking in the dark	07:16
	← _vanessa_ left	07:23
	→ causa_sui joined	07:24
	→ MajorBiscuit joined	07:24
	← sondr3 left	07:25
	← wonko-the-sane left	07:25
	→ vimal joined	07:27
	← causa_sui left	07:28
	→ causa_sui joined	07:29
	← causa_sui left	07:34
	→ jimklimov joined	07:34
	→ fillx joined	07:43
	→ ___nick___ joined	07:45
	→ sondr3 joined	07:49
	→ wakeup joined	07:50
	→ causa_sui joined	07:54
	→ Shentino_ joined	07:55
	← _9pfs left	07:55
	← Shentino left	07:56
	→ zeenk joined	07:56
	Shentino_ → Shentino	07:56
	→ _9pfs joined	07:57
	→ wonko-the-sane joined	07:57
	→ tulpa_ joined	07:58
	← causa_sui left	07:58
	→ causa_sui joined	07:59
	→ donofrio joined	08:00
	← causa_sui left	08:04
	→ Haohmaru joined	08:06
	← donofrio left	08:06
	← kaiseisei left	08:08
	→ kaiseisei joined	08:08
	→ sa0 joined	08:09
	→ geosmileus joined	08:11
	→ AnapodoPsalidaki joined	08:11
	← kenanmarasli left	08:12
	← geosmile left	08:12
	→ Sazhen86 joined	08:13
	← AnapodoPsalidi left	08:13
	← fling left	08:15
	← chenqisu1 left	08:15
	← MajorBiscuit left	08:16
	← fillx left	08:16
	← _9pfs left	08:17
	→ fling joined	08:17
	→ MajorBiscuit joined	08:18
	→ ilogger2 joined	08:40
	→ duxsco joined	08:41
	→ thomas25 joined	08:42
	→ Sulky joined	08:43
	→ swistak joined	08:45
	→ DNH joined	08:46
	→ Misotauros joined	08:46
	→ donofrio joined	08:52
	→ Cork joined	08:52
	→ ueberall joined	08:54
	→ synthmeat joined	08:57
	→ gas51627 joined	08:58
	→ causa_sui joined	08:59
	→ omero joined	08:59
	→ wonko-the-sane joined	08:59
	→ MajorBiscuit joined	09:01
	← causa_sui left	09:04
	← Sulky left	09:14
	← duxsco left	09:17
	→ Sulky joined	09:17
	→ fling joined	09:21
	→ Sh4dowmonk joined	09:22
	← Sulky left	09:22
	→ Sulky joined	09:23
	→ gurkenglas joined	09:24
	→ causa_sui joined	09:24
	→ zen_coder joined	09:27
zen_coder	with "git diff HEAD^ --name-only" I can see all files changes of current commit	09:28
	→ adgtl joined	09:28
zen_coder	how can I see what files were removed in current commit?	09:28
ikke	--diff-filter=D	09:28
	← causa_sui left	09:28
	← Sulky left	09:29
	→ causa_sui joined	09:29
	→ Sulky joined	09:29
	→ squirrel joined	09:29
zen_coder	ikke: thx, how can I filter out the deleted files, and show only modified and added?	09:32
selckin	you read the diff-filter option manual	09:33
ikke	man git diff	09:33
gitinfo	the git-diff manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-diff.html	09:33
	← causa_sui left	09:34
	→ Sulky_ joined	09:34
	← Sulky left	09:37
	→ Sulky__ joined	09:40
zen_coder	I am doing now: "git diff HEAD^ --name-only --diff-filter=ACMRTUXB"	09:42
	← Sulky_ left	09:42
ikke	--diff-filter=d	09:43
	"Also, these upper-case letters can be downcased to exclude."	09:43
	→ john_johnk joined	09:43
	→ zer0bitz joined	09:48
	→ gildasio joined	09:52
	→ dsrt^ joined	09:53
	→ causa_sui joined	09:59
	→ bluepenquin_ joined	10:00
	→ Willtech joined	10:01
	→ sa0 joined	10:02
	← wonko-the-sane left	10:03
	→ wonko-th1-sane joined	10:03
	← causa_sui left	10:04
	→ mic4ael joined	10:06
	→ Sazhen86 joined	10:07
	→ Murr joined	10:07
	← john_johnk left	10:11
	→ c4017 joined	10:12
	← Sazhen86 left	10:18
	→ john_johnk joined	10:20
	← fling left	10:23
	→ fling joined	10:23
	→ causa_sui joined	10:24
	→ analpaper joined	10:26
	← analpaper left	10:26
	→ analpaper joined	10:26
	→ parsnip joined	10:29
	→ vitali64 joined	10:32
	← causa_sui left	10:33
	→ causa_sui joined	10:34
	← causa_sui left	10:43
	← john_johnk left	10:45
	→ ecraven joined	10:46
ecraven	hello ;) I'd like to find the commit that removed a file from a directory. I know the directory, but not the exact file name. is there a way to show all filenames that have existed in a directory, and then to find the commit that removes that file?	10:47
	→ enoq joined	10:47
	→ john_johnk joined	10:48
j416	ecraven: git log -- path	10:48
	ecraven: git log --name-only --path	10:48
	er	10:48
	ecraven: git log --name-only -- path	10:48
ecraven	thanks!	10:49
	→ vishal joined	10:49
ecraven	perfect, thanks!	10:50
	→ tyson2 joined	10:51
	→ The_Blode joined	10:51
	← john_johnk left	10:52
	← Misotauros left	10:53
	← sa0 left	10:55
	→ john_johnk joined	10:55
	→ sa0 joined	10:55
	→ apo joined	10:56
canton7	ecraven, You might want --name-status, to show when each file was added/deleted/modified	10:59
	→ rsx joined	11:00
ecraven	really cool that this is so simple, thanks again ;)	11:00
osse	ecraven, j416: perhaps --diff-filter=D can do some work here too	11:01
	to only show commits that delete something	11:01
	← zen_coder left	11:03
	→ lpapp joined	11:04
lpapp	hi, is it possible to pull the pre-receive hook code from the server to a client?	11:04
	To see why it might reject things	11:04
	Probably not as this could expose vulnerabilities	11:04
ikke	no, git does not expose it	11:05
	→ kenan-office joined	11:05
lpapp	ok, thanks, getting remote: GitLab: You can only use an existing protected branch ref as the basis of a new protected branch.	11:07
	but I do push a branch based on a protected branch, so was surprised what is going on, and it is ok from the gitlab ui	11:07
	but I guess it is a question for #gitlab	11:07
	→ bartman joined	11:11
	→ iomari891 joined	11:13
	→ zmt00 joined	11:14
	→ coaxing joined	11:22
	← iomari891 left	11:23
	→ causa_sui joined	11:24
	→ eroux joined	11:26
	← causa_sui left	11:29
	→ causa_sui joined	11:29
	→ menace joined	11:34
	← menace left	11:34
	← causa_sui left	11:34
	← Sh4dowmonk left	11:39
	→ nyah joined	11:40
	→ causa_sui joined	11:44
	← causa_sui left	11:49
	→ geowiesnot joined	11:49
	→ bertvvvs joined	11:51
	← mic4ael left	11:56
	→ causa_sui joined	11:59
	← geowiesnot left	12:03
	← causa_sui left	12:04
	→ mic4ael joined	12:05
	← kenan-office left	12:07
	→ wakeup joined	12:13
	← dsrt^ left	12:17
	→ MrMagic joined	12:18
	→ Misotauros joined	12:20
	→ bloody joined	12:21
	→ v9fk1yn3nu joined	12:35
	→ sondr3 joined	12:36
	→ casaca joined	12:42
	→ dimi1947 joined	12:46
	← Sulky__ left	12:51
	→ causa_sui joined	12:54
	→ Sulky__ joined	12:55
	→ feriman joined	12:56
	← feriman left	12:57
	→ AbleBacon joined	12:57
	→ feriman joined	12:57
	← causa_sui left	12:59
	← dimi1947 left	12:59
	→ zen_coder joined	13:00
	→ duxsco joined	13:02
	→ causa_sui joined	13:04
	← feriman left	13:05
	← Misotauros left	13:06
	→ feriman joined	13:06
	→ iomari891 joined	13:11
	→ pulse joined	13:11
	→ cdown_ joined	13:18
	→ kenanmarasli joined	13:20
	cdown_ → cdown	13:20
	→ randm joined	13:22
	→ dimi1947 joined	13:25
	← randm left	13:27
	→ randm joined	13:27
	← fling left	13:35
	→ thiago joined	13:36
	→ fling joined	13:37
	← duxsco left	13:44
	← v9fk1yn3nu left	13:45
	→ defjam joined	13:51
	→ quartz joined	13:55
	← squirrel left	13:59
	→ Yruama joined	14:02
	← iomari891 left	14:02
	→ zebrag joined	14:07
	← Murr left	14:07
	→ Xenguy__ joined	14:07
	→ Murr joined	14:07
	← gurkenglas left	14:08
	← Willtech left	14:08
	→ Willtech joined	14:09
quartz	Hello. I'm trying to remove an entire directory from being tracked by git. I'm using the command git rm -r --cached /home/nick/Desktop/Columbia\ 2022 but I get the error: fatal: pathspec '/home/nick/Desktop/Columbia 2022' did not match any files	14:09
	Sorry to ask this again in here, I'm just not sure how to resolve this.	14:09
	← lpapp left	14:10
	→ structoha joined	14:13
canton7	quartz, is that path right? It implies that your whole Desktop is a git reop?	14:16
	*a git repo	14:16
	← Sulky__ left	14:22
mackerman	quartz: Have you committed the removal of that from the staging area? From previously, as git rm doesn't think it is there anymore	14:22
	git status would show any differences	14:22
quartz	Uhhh	14:22
	No, it's just that one folder "Columbia 2022"	14:24
	Which is located on the desktop	14:24
mackerman	If the repo is only one folder, do you want to track it git any more?	14:24
quartz	mackerman: Sorry I'm new to git. I want to keep the folder "Columbia 2022" on my desktop, I just want git to stop tracking it	14:24
	mackerman: No. I'm not sure what I did honestly. The repo and the folder are nothing alike	14:25
mackerman	In other words, do you plan to use this git repo any more?	14:25
quartz	mackerman: No	14:25
mackerman	Then back the folder up and delete the .git directory in it	14:25
quartz	When I do "ls" I don't see a .git directory	14:26
	→ a1eaiactaest joined	14:26
canton7	quartz, so "Columbia 2022" is a git repository, and you want to stop it from being a git repository?	14:26
mannequin	well i use git quite a while now	14:27
	and i can say	14:27
	man it's smart	14:27
canton7	'ls' doesn't show hidden files and folders, and since '.git' starts with a '.', it's considered hidden. Use 'ls -a'	14:27
quartz	canton7: No, Columbia 2022 is not a git repository. Honeslty I'm not sure wtf I did	14:27
	This is so confusing to me lol I'm new to git	14:27
	Sorry	14:27
mackerman	What did you think you were telling git to remove ?	14:27
quartz	mackerman: I just want git to stop tracking my folder "columbia 2022"	14:28
canton7	quartz, can you cd into 'Columbia 2022' and run 'git rev-parse --show-toplevel' ?	14:28
	← structoha left	14:28
canton7	(and tell us what the output is?)	14:28
quartz	canton7: Ahh I see the .git file!	14:28
	OK	14:28
	canton7: /home/nick/Desktop/Columbia 2022	14:29
	→ sentriz joined	14:29
canton7	Right, so 'Columbia 2022' is a git repository, and you should find the folder 'Columbia 2022/.git'	14:30
	(something is a git repostiory if it or one of its parents has a .git dir in it)	14:30
quartz	Ahhh OK	14:31
	So I should run the command git rm -r --cached in that .git directory?	14:31
canton7	No	14:31
	Let's just confirm what you want first. Are you sure that you want to stop 'Columbia 2022' from being a git repository? That means if you made any commits, etc, in that folder, those will be lost	14:32
quartz	canton7: Yes, I literally have no need for it.	14:32
canton7	Cool, just delete the .git dir them. 'rm -rf .git'	14:32
	→ warblr joined	14:32
quartz	I was trying to commit ONE file to a repository for school, and I wanted to do it from my terminal	14:32
	well, I totally messed up, as you can tell	14:33
	I just don't want the folder "Columbia 2022" to be deleted	14:33
mackerman	What repo did you intend to use?	14:33
quartz	I just want git to stop tracking it	14:33
canton7	Yep, if you run 'rm -rf .git' from inside the 'Columbia 2022' folder, then you'll just delete 'Columbia 2022/.git'	14:33
quartz	mackerman: Uhhh one my professor set up for us. I ended up committing my one file using the git website rather than the terminal	14:34
canton7	This is where you're using confusing terminology. "Stop tracking" means that you have a git repository, and you want it to stop keep track of that folder. When in fact you don't want to keep the git repository at all	14:34
	*stop keeping track	14:34
quartz	canton7: OMG it worked! Thank you!	14:35
	→ gast0n joined	14:35
	→ structoha joined	14:36
	← structoha left	14:36
	→ Sulky__ joined	14:36
	→ subopt joined	14:39
	← fling left	14:40
quartz	So I can't commit files to a git repository from terminal just by using a password? I need some type of security hash token?	14:41
canton7	quartz, remember that a git repository is entirely contained on your machine. When you commit something, you're adding it to that .git directory in the root of your repository. You don't need a password to interact with your own filesystem	14:41
	→ fling joined	14:41
	← Willtech left	14:42
canton7	If you want to push commits to a repository on another machne, at that point you'll probably need a password. And what you need is determined by whoever controls the machine that you're pushing to. GitHub for example lets you authenticate using an SSH key or a token -- you're not allowed to use your password, for obvious security reasons	14:42
mackerman	When someone already has an existing repo, like that one of your professor's, you may "git clone" it to have your own copy, entirely local.	14:43
quartz	mackerman: Right	14:43
mackerman	What to do with it after depends on your work flow, including if you need to collaborate with others and merge their changes.	14:45
quartz	canton7: So when I commit a file, that means I'm pushing all commits in the staging area into that .git directory? Than it's possible to "push" that .git directory into the remote github server?	14:45
	→ masber joined	14:45
canton7	quartz, 'push' specifically refers to taking commits in your local repository and transferring them to a remote machine. When you commit a file, that creates a commit in your local git repository (which is stored in that .git dir)	14:46
	The staging area holds files which will be included in the next commit. It doesn't hold commits.	14:46
quartz	canton7: Ahhh OK	14:46
masber	hi, I am trying to rebase master changes into my branch and I get a conflict https://dpaste.org/C8WDC/raw . I have fixed README.md file, then run git add README.md && git rebase --continue and it just undo my changes and gets me back to the conflicted state	14:46
canton7	I recommend starting with a good git resource, and learning from the beginning. !book is the classic text although it's quite long. !bottomup and !cs are good quicker intros	14:46
gitinfo	There are several good books available about git; 'Pro Git' is probably the best: https://git-scm.com/book but also look at !bottomup !cs !gcs !designers !gitt !vcbe and !parable	14:46
	'Git from the bottom up' starts with explaining the building blocks of git and proceeds to tell you how they fit together. https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/	14:46
	"Git for Computer Scientists" is a quick introduction to git internals for people who are not scared by phrases like Directed Acyclic Graph. http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/ See also !concepts !bottomup	14:46
masber	how should I fix the conflicts while rebasing?	14:47
quartz	And I thought git was suppose to be easy to learn :(	14:47
canton7	quartz, whatever gave you that impression >< The secret with git is to learn about the underlying data structure -- what a commit is, how a commit refers to its parent, what a branch actually is, etc. Use graphical tools such as gitk to visualise your history. Once you can see and understand what's going on, all of the commands suddenly start	14:48
	making sense	14:48
	masber, !eek	14:48
gitinfo	masber: [!eekaconflict] Merge conflicts are a natural part of collaboration. When facing one, don't panic. Read "How to resolve conflicts" in man git-merge and http://git-scm.com/book/ch3-2.html#Basic-Merge-Conflicts then carefully go through the conflicts. Picking one side verbatim is not always the right choice! A nice video explaining merge conflicts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz7NuSCH6II	14:48
canton7	(rebase and merge conflicts are pretty much the same, except that 'ours' and 'theirs' refer to different things)	14:49
	→ gh34 joined	14:49
canton7	Remember that when you 'git checkout A; git rebase B', git will checkout B and then apply successive patches from A. So at any given point, you're standing on the result of the latest successfully-applied patch, and you're applying the next one. So if you get a conflict, one side is the change introduced by A + whatever patches have been applied so	14:50
	bar, and the other side is the next patch from B to be applied	14:50
	Ack got A and B confised	14:50
	Remember that when you 'git checkout A; git rebase B', git will checkout B and then apply successive patches from A. So at any given point, you're standing on the result of the latest successfully-applied patch, and you're applying the next one. So if you get a conflict, one side is the change introduced by *B + whatever patches have been applied	14:50
	so bar, and the other side is the next patch from *A to be applied	14:50
masber	I know that	14:51
quartz	Can't imagine the IQ of the guy who invented git	14:52
masber	what I don't understand is why git rebase --continue applies the same commit I just changed	14:52
quartz	canton7: Thanks for the links by the way.	14:52
masber	s/changed/fixed/g	14:52
	→ stef204 joined	14:52
canton7	masber, well I don't know what you know unless you tell me :)	14:52
masber	xD true	14:53
	so I run git rebase master	14:53
canton7	masber, when rebase hits a conflict, it will stop with that latest patch partially applied. It's up to you to fix the conflicts and 'git add' everything, then you run 'git rebase --continue', and the rebase finishes applying that patch	14:53
masber	it applies one commit from master at a time	14:54
	then it finds a conflict and stops	14:54
	I get that	14:54
	← sondr3 left	14:54
masber	now I fix the conflict	14:54
canton7	almost -- it checks out master, then applies the commits from the branch you had checked out when you ran 'git rebase master'	14:54
	→ Akiva joined	14:54
	← dimi1947 left	14:55
	← feriman left	14:56
masber	ok, wait, what?	14:57
	so git rebase master, actually modifies the master branch and not the one I am in?	14:57
canton7	That's what I described before, and you said "I know that" >< . "git rebase master" means "Take the commits which HEAD has and master doesn't have, and play them on top of master"	14:57
	I should say, it checks out the commit which 'master' points to	14:58
	→ stutz joined	14:58
	→ Guest69 joined	14:58
	→ ChmEarl joined	14:58
canton7	It doesn't modify the master branch -- but it jumps to the commit which master points to, then applies successive commits from the branch you had checked out when you ran 'git rebase master', then finally updates that branch to point to the last such applied commit	14:58
stutz	is there a way to list all branches/commits/refs that do not include a file? I am like 99.9% sure that the file I am looking at was deleted (which is the state that I want) but I can't seem to find the branch (rather the one I thought it'd be correct is not)	14:59
canton7	stutz, you might be able to script something with 'git ls-tree' and 'git for-each-ref'?	15:00
masber	ok	15:00
	so let say I have master, featureA and featureB branches	15:00
canton7	stutz, if you're completely failing to find this change anywhere, it might have been done as part of an !evil merge	15:00
gitinfo	stutz: [!evil_merge] What you describe _can_ be done, but results in an "evil merge": a commit that purports to be a merge, but does not actually take all changes from all sides. This violates the assumptions that tools and humans make about merges, and usually results in confusion and pain down the road.	15:00
masber	featureA and featureB forked from the same master commit	15:00
	then featureA and master merges	15:00
	→ rgrinberg joined	15:00
masber	and I want to apply those new changes to featureB branch	15:01
canton7	stutz, ignore the first bit of the trigger. But an evil merge is one which makes a change that isn't present in either of its parents. The git tooling is pretty bad at finding changes introduced by evil merges	15:01
masber	I understand the way to do this would be to git checkout master; git rebase featureB	15:01
	right?	15:02
canton7	masber, so both master and featureA have gained new commits, but they're still separate?	15:02
stutz	could be a messed up rebase for all I know, point is I'd just like to find the state where the file is gone cos that's the one I need :D	15:02
masber	master and featureA merges, featureA can be deleted	15:02
	featureA can be deleted because its changes are now in master	15:03
stutz	I was hoping for git to have some plumber functioni that allows me to look for a file (or its absence) but I guess scripting it is then	15:03
	thanks canton7	15:03
canton7	OK, so master has gained new commits, and you want those to be present in the featureB branch? So what you want to go from is this: https://gitirc.eu/g/QC.png to this: https://gitirc.eu/g/QC.png?	15:04
masber	they both same picture, but yes that is the end goal	15:05
	→ zumba_addict joined	15:05
canton7	Bleh sorry. From this: https://gitirc.eu/g/QB.png to this: https://gitirc.eu/g/QC.png	15:06
	Or, if we want to get fancy: https://gitirc.eu/g/QG.png	15:06
masber	yes, that is correct :)	15:07
canton7	masber, OK, so you want to take featureB, and change its commits so they're sat on top of the latest master	15:08
	So that's 'git checkout featureB; git rebase master'	15:08
masber	ok	15:09
	thank you	15:09
canton7	Note that you're not applying changes to featureB -- you're taking featureB and rewriting it so that it sites on top of those new commits	15:10
	← Sulky__ left	15:11
masber	yeah	15:12
	so master pointer is still the same and history instact	15:12
canton7	Yep	15:12
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	15:14
	← Gustavo6046 left	15:15
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	15:16
	← a1eaiactaest left	15:16
	→ dionysus69 joined	15:19
	→ gurkenglas joined	15:21
quartz	canton7: Sorry to bug you again, but I can't git pull from the terminal using a user name and password anymore?	15:25
canton7	quartz, like I said, it depends on what machine you're pulling from	15:25
	There's no global standard for how authentication is done. It depends on the server you're talking to	15:26
	Are you talking to github? gitlab? bitbucket? gitea? gitolite? Your friend's PC? Something else?	15:26
quartz	canton7: The repo I want to pull from is github	15:26
canton7	Then yes, you need to use an access token or ssh key for github. You can't use your password.	15:26
quartz	Oh I didn't realie there were so many versions of git	15:26
	← ecraven left	15:27
canton7	They're not "versions of git". They're platforms which are built on top of git, but also provide things like authentication, a web interface, issue tracker, pull requests, etc	15:27
dzho	git+EEE	15:31
	← enoq left	15:32
	← dionysus69 left	15:35
	→ dionysus69 joined	15:35
	← dionysus69 left	15:35
	→ dionysus69 joined	15:37
	→ sandipan joined	15:41
	→ v9fk1yn3nu joined	15:44
	→ Payam joined	15:44
Payam	hi	15:44
	How do I check if a repository is a github or gitlab repository?	15:44
ikke	check the url?	15:44
	git itself does not know about 'github repository' or 'gitlab repository'	15:45
	← vitali64 left	15:45
	→ vitali64 joined	15:45
nedbat	Payam: btw, one repo can have a number of remotes, including some on github and some on gitlab	15:48
	Payam: what do you want to do with the repo if and only if it's a github repo?	15:48
parsnip	can have both as remotes too	15:49
	→ madewokherd joined	15:50
	→ Thanatermesis joined	15:51
	Xenguy__ → Xenguy	15:51
Payam	nedbat nothing. I only group them	15:51
nedbat	Payam: group them how? I'm interested	15:52
Payam	tbh I just am interested in Gitlab repositories	15:52
	so I want to "not" care about other. Just a print saying "this is a gitlab repo"	15:53
	→ hololeap_ joined	16:01
	← bertvvvs left	16:01
	→ junktext joined	16:03
parsnip	probably you could have gitlab metadata there	16:05
	many github projects have clues, like a .github subdirectory	16:05
	→ bertvvvs joined	16:05
parsnip	or a README can provide a link to the remote	16:05
	elisp packages usually have metadata for where the source can be found	16:06
	→ saroy\|afk joined	16:08
	← sandipan left	16:11
	← rgrinberg left	16:12
	→ jole joined	16:12
	← john_johnk left	16:12
	→ john_johnk joined	16:12
	← quartz left	16:14
	→ iomari891 joined	16:15
	→ sandipan joined	16:16
	← zen_coder left	16:17
	→ napping joined	16:17
napping	Hi, is there any way to also change the working file during `add -p`, like if I'm correcting a typo?	16:17
	← saroy\|afk left	16:19
	← wakeup left	16:24
	← zumba_addict left	16:30
	→ sudoforge joined	16:31
parsnip	you mean you discover a typo during `add -p`? good question	16:31
	← madewokherd left	16:33
napping	also if you are selecting a subset of changes with add -p and want to tag a subset with a TODO or something for a closer look after dividng the commits	16:35
	→ emanuele6 joined	16:38
	← MajorBiscuit left	16:38
	← emanuele6 left	16:39
	→ emanuele6 joined	16:39
parsnip	to the first question, i see this "e - manually edit the current hunk"	16:39
	at https://git-scm.com/docs/git-add	16:39
napping	Sure, but that only affects what's added to the index, afterwards you'll see some staged changes, and a new unstaged change reintroducing the typo	16:41
	→ liefer1 joined	16:41
	← fling left	16:44
	→ fling joined	16:46
	→ jelmer joined	16:46
	← jelmer left	16:46
	→ pf1337 joined	16:48
	→ jelmer joined	16:49
	← masber left	16:50
	← hololeap_ left	16:51
	→ xkuru joined	16:51
	← pf1337 left	16:51
	→ hololeap_ joined	16:53
	→ geowiesnot joined	16:54
parsnip	i'm horrible at CLI git. i just started a tutorial	16:55
	→ stephen joined	16:55
stephen	how do i check which commit a branch was created from?	16:55
	→ hitman joined	16:55
	→ great_taste joined	16:56
ikke	git does not record that	16:57
nedbat	stephen: branches don't remember where they were created	16:57
napping	stephen: git merge-base can find a common ancestor. If you want actual history it could only be found in the reflog	16:57
stephen	got it, thanks	16:57
napping	What would you like for newbranch after git checkout -b newbranch some-branch; git reset --hard unrelated-branch	16:58
	→ skapata joined	16:59
	← skapata left	16:59
	→ skapata joined	16:59
stephen	so if they don't know where they are created from, how can i rebase my specific commits onto another branch	16:59
	clearly there is some point in history it knows where to start pulling commits from	16:59
	→ Guest96 joined	16:59
Guest96	what is the use of -u in "git push -u origin master"	17:00
jast	you give the original branch as the <upstream> and the new branch with --onto	17:00
	Guest96: it associates the local master branch with the master branch on origin, so that "git pull" and "git push" without arguments will use that. (you can have multiple remotes, each with its own master branch)	17:00
stephen	no im saying, based on your comment, you say git does not know 'where/when' a branch was created	17:00
	so what im asking is why does rebasing work then to rewrite only the new commits ive added	17:01
thiago	stephen: you just remember what branches they are	17:01
	git won't remember for you	17:01
jast	rebase often defaults to the upstream branch	17:01
	so e.g. if you created your local branch foo from origin/foo, or you did "git push -u origin foo" at some point, the default upstream for rebase will be "origin/foo"	17:01
thiago	git has a feature that allows a branch locally to be configured to track another	17:01
	it's stored in .git/config	17:01
Guest96	jast so now everytime I do git push or pull it will be done against origin, right?	17:01
thiago	it's not part of the repository history	17:01
Guest96	do I understand it correctly?	17:02
thiago	so when you run "git rebase" or "git pull", it uses that information to determine which branch to rebase on top of or merge	17:02
	Guest96: not necessarily. That's all subject to the configuration	17:03
Guest96	I don't understand it then, what's the use of -u?	17:04
thiago	that saves in the config	17:04
	← geowiesnot left	17:05
	← coaxing left	17:06
	← john_johnk left	17:06
napping	stephen: If you checked out a local version of a remote branch, then git does record that in the branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge options and rebase uses it	17:07
	Either way, rebase figures out where exactly to look at history from by finding a common ancestor	17:11
	Besides, rebase usually changes where your branch is attached to the target branch	17:12
	→ coaxing joined	17:13
	→ adonis joined	17:19
	← iomari891 left	17:19
adonis	is there a way to grab a list of the git tags actually being used by commits in my repo?	17:20
ikke	What do you mean with "used by commits"	17:20
	→ OnkelTem joined	17:21
	→ seifeslimene joined	17:21
adonis	I have a weird issue, where after setting an upstream on my repo the list of tags for the "upstream" got merged with the list from "origin"	17:21
	← hitman left	17:22
rewt	a tag is a pointer to a commit... commits don't reference tags	17:22
	→ funhouse joined	17:22
adonis	at some point those got pushed so origin now has tags from both upstream and origin and I need to undo that by finding the list of tags that are actually pointing to commits in origin	17:22
rewt	all tags are local, so when you fetched from the remote, you fetched all the remote's tags	17:22
adonis	rewt: you are right, by used I meant pointing..	17:22
napping	Would it help to know which tags point to ancestors of some commit?	17:23
	← Guest96 left	17:23
	→ saroy\|afk joined	17:25
ikke	git tags --merged <branch>	17:25
	that should tags that are reachable from <branch>	17:26
	→ machinehum joined	17:26
napping	(which is maybe not helpful if your local branches are built on top of remote branches and some of the unwanted tags are in those ancestors)	17:27
adonis	let me try that to see what I get	17:27
	← sandipan left	17:27
	→ sandipan joined	17:32
	→ quartz joined	17:32
	→ madewokherd joined	17:34
	← saroy\|afk left	17:35
	→ sobkas joined	17:38
	← machinehum left	17:39
	→ machinehum joined	17:41
	→ Jacques joined	17:45
	← v9fk1yn3nu left	17:45
	← fling left	17:47
	→ fling joined	17:48
	→ parsnip0 joined	17:50
	→ feriman joined	17:52
	→ luke-jr joined	17:53
	← hololeap_ left	17:57
	→ hololeap_ joined	17:59
	→ cvmn joined	18:03
	← Jacques left	18:04
quartz	I'm trying to push some changes locally to a git repository on GitHub. I'm trying to do this through the terminal. I committed one file and I just want to push the changes to a specific branch of a github repository. It won't let me push the changes when I type: git push	18:11
	← sandipan left	18:12
quartz	I guess it's best not to use the terminal for beginners	18:12
	← liefer1 left	18:12
	→ liefer joined	18:14
	← bluepenquin_ left	18:16
mackerman	git on the terminal is the common language on this channel, easiest to talk about in a text medium, and the most powerful.	18:16
	→ v9fk1yn3nu joined	18:16
mackerman	quartz: What error do you get?	18:17
quartz	mackerman: All I want to do is push the changes I made to a remote github repository.	18:17
mackerman	You will need credentials, which for GitHub means a ssh key or a personal access token.	18:17
quartz	I have that	18:17
parsnip0	what error?	18:17
jast	what error do you get?	18:18
quartz	Actually, I'm not sure I set up the github correctly	18:18
	When I type git remote -v it does not show anything	18:18
	But on my terminal I get the green "git master" icon thing on the end of the terminal	18:18
	They need to offer courses on how to use git, this is crazy	18:19
jast	did you create the local repo from scratch using "git init", rather than as a clone from the repo on GitHub?	18:19
	← vitali64 left	18:19
quartz	jast: I think I did both :(	18:19
jast	so, normally "git clone" sets up a remote that would show up in "git remote -v"	18:19
	is the github repo completely empty? i.e. not even a readme or license file or anything	18:20
parsnip0	others will persevere, but you were asked for the error three times	18:20
jast	(the answer affects the options we have to fix up your existing local repo so that you can actually push)	18:22
quartz	No the github repo is not empty	18:22
	I did a git clone, I remember that much	18:22
jast	all right, do commits from the github repo show up when you do "git log"?	18:22
quartz	Yes	18:23
jast	just as an extra sanity check, what does this say: git config remote.origin.url	18:23
	← hololeap_ left	18:23
	← rsx left	18:23
	→ hololeap_ joined	18:23
quartz	jast: Nothing	18:23
jast	okay, that's what I expected	18:24
quartz	But I did a git clone	18:24
jast	so, apparently you cloned the github repo but, at some point, deleted the remote (by accident I'm guessing)	18:24
	that's not too bad, we can re-add it	18:24
quartz	How is that possible	18:24
jast	"git remote rm"	18:24
parsnip0	or the clone failed? or the clone was somewhere else?	18:24
jast	or by editing .git/config	18:24
	well, if your commits show up with "git log" you've got to be in approximately the right place	18:24
parsnip0	are the commits same as remote?	18:24
quartz	parsnip0: Uhhh I'm not sure	18:25
jast	we'll find out when trying to repair this :)	18:25
quartz	I just cloned it. I tried to make some changes on my end and I did commit one file	18:25
parsnip0	k	18:25
quartz	Maybe I should just use the github desktop app	18:25
	lol	18:25
jast	so, let's try and re-add that remote. do you want to push via SSH (with an SSH private key) or via HTTP (username/password)?	18:25
parsnip0	didn't github disable password recently?	18:26
quartz	Well I had to clone with a SSH private key	18:26
parsnip0	like a month ago?	18:26
quartz	parsnip0: Yes	18:26
jast	no idea, I have 2FA active which disables password by itself	18:26
	→ rgrinberg joined	18:26
jast	okay, so let's try the SSH setup	18:26
	assuming your github repo is at github.com/foo/bar, do this:	18:26
	git remote add origin [email@hidden.address]	18:26
quartz	Oh shoot I lost the SSH key I generated :(	18:27
	God this gets worse and worse	18:27
jast	whoops	18:27
	the good news is you can add another one in the github web interface	18:27
quartz	Yeah I just did that	18:28
jast	once you have the remote re-added, "git push" should try to actually do something, and then give you a different error :)	18:29
	← napping left	18:29
jast	or it might just tell you that it doesn't know where to push to, which is fine, too	18:30
quartz	When I make a new branch, it copies everything from master? I thought a branch could just be a few files from the main branch, or everything from the main branch	18:30
	→ EvilDMP joined	18:31
jast	typically a branch just starts off with the exact same contents of the commit/branch you're on at the time	18:31
	and they share history, so for instance the next time you commit to that branch, in a comparison of the two branches your new branch will come out as "one commit ahead"	18:32
	it's possible to create a completely disconnected branch, though, with no common history and no common files (unless/until you add some)	18:32
	it's not the most common use case, but it exists :) look at the --orphan option for "git checkout"	18:33
	we have manpages here for your convenience: man git-checkout	18:33
gitinfo	the git-checkout manpage is available at https://gitirc.eu/git-checkout.html	18:33
quartz	Uhhh OK	18:34
	Let me fix the git remote add thing now	18:34
	jast: OK I just added the repo, and git remote -v returns the repo name	18:36
	← tyson2 left	18:38
	→ Sulky joined	18:41
	→ hitman joined	18:43
	← hitman left	18:44
quartz	I'm trying to swtich to a branch on my local git repo. I'm doing git checkout <branch name> but it's telling me: error: pathspec 'indent-feature' did not match any file(s) known to git	18:45
parsnip0	will that be a new branch name, or one existing already on remote?	18:46
quartz	parsnip0: I just created the branch via the github web interface on the repo	18:47
	So maybe my local repo needs to be updated somehow?	18:47
parsnip0	maybe try `git fetch`?	18:47
quartz	What will that do	18:47
	→ liefer5 joined	18:48
quartz	nevermind I'll look it up, sorry dumb question	18:48
parsnip0	fetch branch refs from remote	18:48
	it's sort of half of "git pull"	18:48
	git pull is approximately git fetch + git merge	18:48
	basically, search term could be like, "how do i checkout a remote branch"	18:49
	*git	18:49
	but connecting the random claims on internet to actual information found in git manual or book is a good practice	18:50
	← liefer5 left	18:50
parsnip0	i try to prefer the git manual and git book, but if i use external results, i try to confirm somewhere in manual	18:50
	← liefer left	18:50
parsnip0	it also gets you used to how things are described in manual	18:51
	→ duxsco joined	18:52
	→ liefer joined	18:52
	← fling left	18:52
quartz	When I do git fetch it says: fatal: protocol 'git@https' is not supported	18:53
ikke	quartz: sounds like a messed up remote url	18:53
	→ fling joined	18:54
	→ liefer2 joined	18:54
quartz	Maybe I don't need the https	18:55
ikke	not if you use ssh	18:56
	which you seem to be using	18:56
parsnip0	yep, above was said, "git remote add origin [email@hidden.address]	18:56
	[email@hidden.address]	18:56
	← liefer left	18:57
	liefer2 → liefer	18:57
quartz	parsnip0: When I do that (without the https) it tells me: origin already exists :(	18:57
	Why does nothing work right fo rme lol :(	18:58
	→ dslegends joined	18:58
ikke	git remote set-url origin <new-url>	18:58
parsnip0	i only meant that you weren't advised to put https	18:58
	← coaxing left	18:59
quartz	ikke: now it says "does not appear to be a git repository	18:59
	I didn't add https	18:59
	in the url name	18:59
	← liefer left	19:00
quartz	Maybe because the repo is private? I have access rights under my account.	19:00
	← Payam left	19:00
parsnip0	maybe it has to be [email@hidden.address] ?	19:01
	https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/getting-started-with-git/managing-remote-repositories#changing-a-remote-repositorys-url	19:01
	→ liefer joined	19:01
ikke	parsnip0: git is smart enough to append it if necesary	19:01
parsnip0	ah	19:01
	→ coaxing joined	19:02
	← gildasio left	19:02
	→ gildasio joined	19:04
	→ mjoerg joined	19:04
parsnip0	ikke: perhaps they could test `ssh -T [email@hidden.address] per https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/connecting-to-github-with-ssh/testing-your-ssh-connection	19:04
ikke	that should show the user they are authenticated as	19:05
quartz	It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a private repo?	19:05
ikke	quartz: perhaps	19:05
	← mjoerg left	19:06
ikke	quartz: how many user accounts do you have?	19:06
quartz	ikke: One	19:06
	← great_taste left	19:06
	→ great_taste joined	19:06
	→ LuxuryMode joined	19:06
ikke	Ok, so I expect that account to have access to that repo	19:06
parsnip0	what command provoked "does not appear to be a git repository"	19:07
quartz	git fetch	19:07
ikke	quartz: can you try what parsnip suggested	19:07
parsnip0	`ssh -T [email@hidden.address]	19:07
ikke	ssh -T [email@hidden.address]	19:07
quartz	The authenticity of host 'github.com (140.82.112.3)' can't be established.	19:08
	How is that possible, it's a very established site	19:08
ikke	That's normal for ssh when you connect the first time	19:08
quartz	[email@hidden.address] Permission denied (publickey).	19:09
ikke	Did you generate an ssh keypair and added the public key to github?	19:09
	→ cousteau joined	19:09
ikke	And this also suggests the remote url is still incorrect	19:09
quartz	ikke: No idea what tha tis	19:09
	Holy shit it's taken me an entire day to learn how to push a simple file to a github repo lol	19:10
ikke	https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/connecting-to-github-with-ssh	19:10
quartz	Maybe it's better to do it from https?	19:10
	Or does that mean I can't connect via terminal?	19:10
ikke	You need to generate a personal access token	19:10
	https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-account-and-data-secure/creating-a-personal-access-token	19:11
quartz	ikke: Yes I have one	19:11
parsnip0	you mean that's an alternative	19:11
	ssh, or token	19:11
ikke	quartz: then use https and use that token	19:11
	→ Misotauros joined	19:12
ikke	and copy the url from the project page (there is a green "	19:12
quartz	Oh I thought the token method was ssh	19:12
ikke	"code" button)	19:12
parsnip0	iiuc, ssh and token are disjoint methods	19:12
	and github removed password access a month ago	19:12
ikke	ssh uses a key pair	19:12
parsnip0	we all using ssh key pair	19:12
mackerman	"ssh key" is ssh. "personal access token" is generated passwords over https.	19:13
	← EvilDMP left	19:13
	← funhouse left	19:13
ikke	What github changed is that you cannot use your password anymore, but need to use a access token	19:13
quartz	omg you guys it worked	19:13
parsnip0	congrats!	19:13
	→ EvilDMP joined	19:13
parsnip0	you are welcome to use GitHub Desktop app, but this channel wouldn't be able to help as much.	19:14
	as was said earlier, CLI git is the common denominator	19:14
quartz	Yeah I needed the .git at the end of the url for some reason	19:14
parsnip0	maybe	19:15
	i'm skeptical, based on what ikke said. maybe multiple things changed.	19:15
	i've leaned heavily on magit as a git UI, which hinders my ability to keep up on this channel.	19:15
quartz	OK now I can git checkout <branch name>	19:16
	← coaxing left	19:19
quartz	I made changes to one file on my local repo, but I want to push them to a remote repo. When I type 'git push origin <branch name>' it says "everything up to date" but how is that possible?	19:19
	→ hololeap joined	19:19
ikke	quartz: you need to commit the change first	19:19
	← hololeap_ left	19:20
	→ coaxing joined	19:20
quartz	ikke: Yes I just did that.	19:20
	← coaxing left	19:21
ikke	what does git status say?	19:21
quartz	It still tells me "everything up to date	19:21
	→ coaxing joined	19:21
quartz	Your branch is up to date with 'origin/indent-feature'.	19:21
	Nothing to commit working tree clean	19:22
ikke	did you commit before or after you checked out the branch?	19:22
parsnip0	maybe the change is already there	19:22
	ah	19:22
quartz	I think before	19:22
ikke	then it's committed in the previous branch (probably master?)	19:22
parsnip0	git log --oneline --graph --all --pretty=format:"%h"	19:23
	quartz: can you share result of above in a pastebin site?	19:24
	hmm, no decorate	19:24
ikke	!situation	19:24
gitinfo	Please post the url returned by ' git log -n 20 --all --graph --format="%h %p %d %s" \| curl -F text=@- https://upaste.de ' to give us an idea about what your situation is (increase the -n argument if your problem is more complex than 20 commits can explain)	19:24
parsnip0	change "%h" to "%h%d"	19:25
quartz	ikke: I tried to commit it on the branch I'm on now	19:25
parsnip0	if you don't want to share commit messages, remote %s	19:25
	oh, --oneline is redundantj	19:26
	s/j//	19:26
	*remove %s	19:26
quartz	https://upaste.de/ppQ	19:26
	→ funhouse joined	19:27
parsnip0	that makes things clearer, no?	19:27
ikke	is 945d282 your commit?	19:27
	git show 945d282	19:27
quartz	parsnip0: I'm honestly not really sur ehow to read it	19:27
	ikke: I'm not sure	19:27
ikke	run that command	19:28
parsnip0	quartz: run it with %s locally, it might help you interpret	19:28
	→ epony joined	19:28
parsnip0	but we can pretty much read it without the %s	19:28
	run `git show 945d282` as suggested, might confirm if that was the file changes you were looking for	19:29
quartz	yes they are	19:29
	but I don't see it reflected on the repo when I look at the files via the web on github	19:30
ikke	git cherry-pick 945d282	19:30
parsnip0	conceptually, i think you want to move the indent-feature "branch ref" over to where master is right now	19:30
ikke	git branch -f master origin/main	19:30
quartz	branch 'master' set up to track 'origin/main'.	19:31
ikke	quartz: what does git status say now?	19:31
quartz	Your branch is up to date with 'origin/indent-feature'	19:32
	Uhh	19:32
	I think I'm exhausted from this lol	19:32
ikke	quartz: you forgot the cherry-pick?	19:32
quartz	what does that do	19:33
ikke	copy the commit onto the current branch	19:33
quartz	Oh	19:33
	→ liefer2 joined	19:33
quartz	Yeah OK I just did that	19:33
	Git terminal now has an up arrow and 1 on it	19:33
ikke	now you can push your branch	19:33
quartz	Which means it's waiting for me to push the commit?	19:33
ikke	I suggest you to read the first couple of chapters of https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2	19:34
anddam	should tags be auto-completed when typing "tags/" then startin a tag name?	19:35
quartz	ikke: Yes someone suggested it in here earlier.	19:35
anddam	I do have bash-completion for git enabled	19:35
quartz	So now I have to do: git push origin indent-feature?	19:35
ikke	quartz: yes	19:35
parsnip0	ikke: https://gitexercises.fracz.com/ is another good resource?	19:35
ikke	probably	19:36
parsnip0	quartz: interactive exercises ^ (maybe after reading those chapters mentioned)	19:36
	→ hololeap_ joined	19:37
quartz	parsnip0: Wow thanks so much :)	19:38
parsnip0	:-)	19:38
quartz	Yeah interactive exercises helped me learn vim	19:38
	→ tyson2 joined	19:38
quartz	OK thanks everyone for your help, I could have not done this by googling my way thorugh it	19:38
	← hololeap left	19:38
	← liefer left	19:38
	liefer2 → liefer	19:38
ikke	80% of using git is getting learning a specific workflow	19:39
quartz	Yeah I'm trying to work exclusively from terminal	19:39
ikke	That's fine	19:39
quartz	I mean, how else would you interact with git? the desktop app?	19:39
ikke	yeah, there are all kinds of interfaces	19:39
	dedicated tools or integrated into editors	19:39
parsnip0	quartz: there's a link in the /topic, that leads to https://gitolite.com/gcs.html and https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/	19:40
ikke	But personally using the CLI is the best way to learn git	19:40
parsnip0	in a sense, it's got the best support	19:40
ikke	:)	19:40
	← liefer left	19:40
parsnip0	i generally don't ask questions about magit here ;-)	19:41
	→ Jong joined	19:41
ikke	I happen to use it	19:41
	→ liefer joined	19:41
quartz	OK thanks everyone for your help, I need to go and eat now.	19:41
	→ magic_ninja joined	19:41
	← quartz left	19:42
	← Gustavo6046 left	19:43
	→ Gustavo6046 joined	19:43
	← Akiva left	19:43
	← hololeap_ left	19:43
	→ hololeap_ joined	19:45
	← dionysus69 left	19:47
	← EvilDMP left	19:49
	← seifeslimene left	19:49
	← great_taste left	19:49
	← stephen left	19:49
	→ CATS joined	19:49
	→ seifeslimene joined	19:50
	← fling left	19:56
	→ fling joined	19:58
	← pulse left	20:01
	→ great_taste joined	20:01
	← skapata left	20:01
	→ EvilDMP joined	20:01
	→ geowiesnot joined	20:02
	← sobkas left	20:03
	→ Flooo joined	20:06
Flooo	Hi	20:06
	I have a problem with my submodule. I changed the commit but it seems the top level repository is not seeing it	20:08
	git status does not show it as modified and git add does not work too	20:08
	← EvilDMP left	20:08
Flooo	how can i solve this?	20:08
	← gh34 left	20:09
	← geowiesnot left	20:09
	→ pulse joined	20:09
Guest69	High level question: I never know how granular to make my commits. Typically I'll end up with a few hundred lines of diffs across a half-dozen files, many of which are not logically related.	20:11
nedbat	Guest69: make them more granular than that :)	20:11
Guest69	for example: I fixed a logging issue, fixed a formatting issue, edited some comments, fixed a bug and added a feature which is kinda related to the bug and kinda not... do I commit these all as one big blob, or try to take the time and commit these 5-ish things one at a time?	20:11
	← duxsco left	20:12
nedbat	Guest69: i would separate them into 5 commits	20:12
	(i would try to)	20:12
Guest69	okay and each commit is like 20-70 lines of diffs probably	20:12
nedbat	20-70 sounds like a good size	20:13
	→ xylz joined	20:13
	← Sulky left	20:13
	→ iffraff joined	20:14
Flooo	Guest69: i would make minimum 5 commits, maybe more depending if the are woth to split up	20:14
	→ Sh4dowmonk joined	20:14
Flooo	But of course you should not need more time to split up the stuff than doing the actual change ;-)	20:16
	← zer0bitz left	20:16
Flooo	Solved my problem with not recognized submodule change by switching branches of top-level repo	20:18
	→ Lord_of_Life_ joined	20:18
	← feriman left	20:19
	→ cliluw joined	20:20
	Lord_of_Life_ → Lord_of_Life	20:21
	→ EvilDMP joined	20:21
	→ a1eaiactaest joined	20:23
	→ dionysus69 joined	20:28
	← Sh4dowmonk left	20:28
avalon	Guest69: think of it from the point of view of the person that might have to review your commits. you want them to be relatively self contained and digestible - nobody wants to review several hundred lines of diffs that touch a bunch of different areas of the code base in unrelated ways	20:30
	← adonis left	20:31
	← cliluw left	20:35
	→ awmv joined	20:36
	→ t0mm13b_ joined	20:38
	→ zumba_addict joined	20:39
anddam	can I remove all stale branches at once?	20:39
	→ anaveragehuman joined	20:40
anddam	to be more clear I want to delete local branches whose remote counterparts are gone	20:40
	and I am on windows so my scripting capabilities are severely capped	20:40
	→ Sh4dowmonk joined	20:41
	← Sh4dowmonk left	20:42
	← anaveragehuman left	20:47
	← gas51627 left	20:48
mackerman	anddam: git remote prune	20:49
	→ szkl joined	20:57
	← donofrio left	20:58
	→ lgc joined	20:59
	→ zeenk joined	21:00
	← fling left	21:00
	← lgc left	21:00
	← xylz left	21:01
	→ fling joined	21:02
anddam	nope, that will keep the local branches, but git branch -vv will show "gone" for the remotes	21:04
	well I ended up doing it by hand, it was easier anyway	21:05
	but I am curious if there's a syntax for that, or that is left as an exercise to the reader	21:05
	→ donofrio joined	21:06
	← madewokherd left	21:06
	→ kexec joined	21:06
	← kenanmarasli left	21:07
	← Xenguy left	21:07
	← dionysus69 left	21:08
	→ pretty_dumm_guy joined	21:08
	← bertvvvs left	21:09
kexec	if i create a commit with --date and then push it, git log shows the entered date,, but github shows the date and time when the commit was actually created (not the date and time i entered through --date)... why is that? or to force the entered date to show on github?	21:10
foo	Does "github" or "gitlab" handle git merging differently? We recently had an issue where (to my surprise) a git merge did not properly show 5 lines as being an addition... which broke some stuff and caused some confusion. One of our devs blamed the fact that it's because we're not using github or gitlab and that those two "merge more intelligently" ... I believe "git is git" ... there are no "smarter ways of	21:13
	merging" - can anyone speak to this? I'm open to his thoughts, I simply didn't realize if that was the case.	21:13
ljharb	afaik github just uses git	21:14
	but also, you're not using github or gitlab? O.o	21:14
	foo smacks ljharb	21:15
foo	ljharb: No. :) gitolite	21:15
	I'd imagine they all use git ... but maybe not	21:15
ljharb	even tho the dev is wrong, the thing they want is good :-p	21:16
cousteau	foo: there's a difference between what git does when merging and what it shows you	21:18
	once you've merged, all git knows is: what are the two parent commits, what the code looked like in those commits, and what the code looks like now.	21:18
	if you use a tool to visualize the diff, it will GENERATE the diff when you request to visualize it. Git does not store this diff anywhere; it stores complete snapshots of the code.	21:19
	So... maybe Github is displaying things differently.	21:19
	→ Akiva joined	21:20
cousteau	...wait, did you mean "show 5 lines as being a deletion" as in really "show", or as in "understand"? Because I think I misunderstood what you meant.	21:20
	if this is about how git merges rather than how it displays the merges, then... well, github definitely or most likely uses git for merges, but it might tweak the default options	21:21
	like, instead of defaulting to strategy X, it defaults to strategy Y, which is smarter about whatever	21:21
foo	cousteau: first of all, I appreciate your willingness to make sense of what I'm saying - thank you. For clarity, we use gitolite, with git. I did a git merge feature-branch. I fixed two conflicts. Then I did git diff --cached ... and I could clearly see that git was not showing me 5 lines - this is the first time I've ever seen this. What that meant is: we had 5 lines in there that should have been removed (it	21:22
	was moved down in the code)	21:22
cousteau	Or, you have an old version of git, and it isn't as smart about merges. Git very recently introduced a new merging strategy that is now the default; maybe that is smarter in some regards	21:22
foo	Ohhhhh	21:23
cousteau	oh. Well, git diff doesn't show everything on a merge, be careful with that.	21:23
foo	cousteau: I wonder, if that's a version of gitolite or local git	21:23
	cousteau: I believe git diff (CLI) only shows modifications?	21:23
j416	foo: with arguments it can diff other things than the work tree	21:24
cousteau	if you have two commits, it'll show differences directly. But with merges involved, things get funky	21:24
	→ wakeup joined	21:24
cousteau	I'd give you details if I understood 10% of it...	21:24
foo	lol	21:25
	Fair enough	21:25
j416	haha.	21:26
	← cvmn left	21:26
foo	Can someone verify if github or gitbucket merges differently? My sense is, the developer was referring to the UI on merging	21:26
j416	I've been using git almost daily for over a decade and still haven't made much sense of the merge diffs	21:26
foo	haha, fair enough.	21:27
j416	(but I'm sure they make some sense, if you try)	21:29
cousteau	I think merge diffs only show the stuff that isn't in either of the ancestors	21:29
	...kinda	21:29
	or that is in one of the ancestors when it should be in the other	21:29
	i.e. only shows what you changed over a regular git merge	21:30
foo	I wonder if a loom (screen recording) would help get my point across.	21:30
	I've never seen this before	21:30
cousteau	anyway. I assume gitolite has a GUI with a cool "Merge these two branches!" button that does all the work, right?	21:31
foo	cousteau: nah, no UI	21:31
cousteau	Maybe that button doesn't do the same thing as `git merge`, but rather `git merge --strategy=whatever --strategy-option=dunno`	21:31
	oh	21:31
	...then what the hell is gitolite?	21:32
foo	cousteau: let's me specify perms to branches, https://gitolite.com/gitolite/index.html - , let's me set up git hosting for a couple projects	21:32
cousteau	I see	21:32
	but I suppose gitolite itself doesn't merge, right? It just hosts a git repository, and if you want to merge you pull, merge, and push	21:33
	(and if you try to push to a forbidden branch, then you get a paddlin')	21:33
	because in that case it's your local git what's doing the merging, not gitolite	21:34
	← Flooo left	21:34
	→ madewokherd joined	21:34
	← Gustavo6046 left	21:34
cousteau	if it were something like github, I suppose it can "do some magic" when you merge through it. I can imagine that github may not do a "plain, option-less merge" when merging two branches through the GUI	21:35
	← hololeap_ left	21:36
	→ adonis joined	21:36
	→ john_johnk joined	21:37
	→ hololeap_ joined	21:37
adonis	whats the official way to deal with 'env: python: No such file or directory' when doing git commit on mac os 12.3. Mac os 12.3 removed python 2.7 which it seemed the git binary was using?	21:37
	← Akiva left	21:38
	← zeenk left	21:39
cousteau	...install python again?	21:39
	cousteau wonders if it HAS to be 2.7 or if python 3 will work just fine. After all, 2.7 is probably deprecated by now.	21:40
cousteau	actually don't pay much attention to me since I have no idea what the "official" fix is. (But you do have an up-to-date git, right?)	21:41
adonis	I have git updated to the latest yes	21:41
	but I wonder if I can somehow get env to pickup python3 which I do have.	21:42
	← john_johnk left	21:42
cousteau	normally, python would link to python2 or python3	21:42
	but it's weird that nowadays there are still `#!/usr/bin/env python` scripts that don't specify either python2 or python3 explicitly	21:43
adonis	I tried doing alias python='python3' or even the absolute path to it but env still complains	21:43
cousteau	as far as I know, env won't get aliases	21:44
	you'd need a symlink	21:44
	→ w_lehinsun joined	21:44
cousteau	doesn't have to be in /usr/bin (or whatever Mac uses); could be local, anywhere on the $PATH	21:44
adonis	right now python doesn't link to python3 on mac os 12.3 so yea let me try linking on those dirs you mentioned.	21:44
cousteau	be careful though, because if a script is in python2, calling it with python3 might fail	21:45
	← great_taste left	21:45
	← adgtl left	21:46
	← a1eaiactaest left	21:46
adonis	cousteau: good point. its better if I link python to python 2.7.x	21:47
cousteau	if you still have it, yes, definitely do link it to whichever version it was before	21:47
	...can't see any python script in git though	21:47
	→ MajorBiscuit joined	21:48
cousteau	(I recall that there were some python scripts, e.g. git-p4, but I can't find any on core git using python, on a quick and dirty and probably incomplete search)	21:48
adonis	cousteau: when I open the git binary for editing/inspecting I do see references to python in there though	21:49
cousteau	oh	21:50
	...well, I guess it's calling python with a script that is stored somewhere else	21:50
	do you see how it's calling python? what script it's passing it?	21:50
adonis	nah, it’s a binary file :)	21:50
	→ john_johnk joined	21:51
adonis	that’s a machine executable file, not sure what the proper term would be :)	21:51
cousteau	yeah, I got that... I thought you were inspecting the binary and somehow found "python" in it	21:51
adonis	that’s what I pretty much did lol, theres a bunch of chars that can't be read but yea, python is referenced	21:52
cousteau	I see that the git source code has makefiles that try to figure out where is python installed; maybe the officialest solution for your case is "just recompile git"?	21:53
	namely, the Makefile file has a PYTHON_PATH that defaults to /usr/bin/python.	21:55
adonis	cousteau: the makefiles having those references wouldn't tie into to python being in the binary though right?	21:56
cousteau	only .py file I see in the source code is git-p4.py, and it seems to be compatible with both python2 and python3... so I suspect you're safe with whatever version of python you have	21:57
	→ great_taste joined	21:57
cousteau	adonis: I think those references on the makefile determine how the binary will be compiled, so it'll eventually have a reference to that specific path	21:58
	...then again... that defines a path, so it doesn't use env. Your problem said something about env not finding python.	21:58
adonis	pretty much	21:58
	specifically calling git commit -m "message", gives 'env: python: No such file or directory'	22:00
	git add is ok	22:00
	← MajorBiscuit left	22:01
	← madewokherd left	22:03
	← awmv left	22:03
	← fling left	22:04
	→ fling joined	22:06
	← Murr left	22:07
	→ Akiva joined	22:07
	→ Murr joined	22:07
adonis	cousteau: how do I get env to pickup the path I specify for python? I tried doing env python=<python3 path here> git commit -m "test" but it won't pick it up.	22:10
	env is picking the value up but git won't pick it up from env	22:11
cousteau	env python=... will only run the command with a $python environment variable	22:14
adonis	oh	22:14
cousteau	not set the path to `python`	22:15
	you have to put a `python` executable in one of the directories listed in your $PATH	22:15
	→ ramblebamble joined	22:15
cousteau	for example, ``ln -s /usr/bin/python3 /usr/local/bin/python`` (assuming /usr/local/bin/python does not exist yet)	22:16
	or mkdir /tmp/python-path; ln -s /usr/bin/python3 /tmp/python-path/python; env PATH="/tmp/python-path:$PATH" git commit...	22:17
ramblebamble	Hi there, got a quick question, I know that notes are not pushed upstream, and for my situation tags are a bit heavy weight, is there a way to mark commits residing on disjunct branches as leading to the same worktree structure?	22:17
adonis	yea I did that lol but wanted to not have to do that as python will now be linked to running python3	22:17
cousteau	adonis: and let me see if there is some obscure env variable for setting git's python	22:17
	→ impermanence joined	22:18
another\|	ramblebamble: lightweight tags?	22:19
ramblebamble	another\|, no... I actually ment tags of any kind	22:20
another\|	how are leightweight tags too heavy?	22:21
cousteau	forty-one whole bytes, man...	22:22
ramblebamble	I do not mean the byte-size, but the implications, tags are usually used to denote deployments, etc. I was hoping for something more distinct, or being able to tie to commits together in that regard	22:24
another\|	yeah, gotta do a lot of jogging to counter those	22:24
	← tyson2 left	22:24
ramblebamble	a bit more context	22:24
	→ tyson2 joined	22:24
another\|	annotated tags are usually for releases. lightweight tags for your own remarks	22:25
ramblebamble	I am currently thinking on orphaned checkouts, and how you might want to use one branch to serve your private repository and the other to serve e.g. heroku for deployment. You cherry pick the changes you want to deploy, maybe even rebase(but I am reading up on that as we speak). In any case, I require a way to symbolize that commit abc in branch a yields the same working tree as commit cbd on branch	22:26
	j.	22:26
	→ jazzy joined	22:27
ramblebamble	While your description of tag-usage is correct, it is not always followed, e.g. CI/CD starts running on any tag it encounteres etc.	22:27
	→ tmz joined	22:27
	← john_johnk left	22:28
	→ john_johnk joined	22:31
	← EvilDMP left	22:33
another\|	what would be the point of the separate branch?	22:34
	→ analpaper_ joined	22:34
ramblebamble	disjunct history over a common codebase/project	22:35
	→ cebor joined	22:35
ramblebamble	e.g. with Heroku or the AUR repository of Arch Linux you have a repository where you push to once you want to deploy, but then again you also have a remote where you want to develop	22:35
	it allows you to publish only the bare minimum changeset, not show how the sausage is made so to speak in the remote used for publishing	22:36
	but retain the information in the remote you use for development	22:36
	← analpaper left	22:37
ramblebamble	to enable this seemlessly tying commits together in the described way would be nice	22:37
	← junktext left	22:39
	← stef204 left	22:42
another\|	id doesn't sound like you want disjunct history then. wouldn't simple feature branches serve that use case?	22:43
	← parsnip left	22:44
ramblebamble	no, if I want to retain information by keep other things private, I cannot rebase and ommit some commit-messages etc. that will cause trouble rebasing etc. and keeping those feature-branches open all the time. dedicated repos would be best, but that is also cumbersome in its own way, hence my idea with the orphaned branches	22:45
	← impermanence left	22:46
	← john_johnk left	22:47
	→ john_johnk joined	22:49
cousteau	adonis: does your repository have any hooks that may be calling python?	22:51
	because otherwise it seems strange that python is being invoked, unless I'm missing something (as a normal git user who is not a git developer/maintainer or anything)	22:52
	→ dtux_ joined	22:53
	→ walterwhip joined	22:54
	← john_johnk left	22:55
	dtux_ → dtux	22:57
	← hololeap_ left	22:57
	→ hololeap_ joined	22:57
	← walterwhip left	22:58
	→ geowiesnot joined	23:00
adonis	cousteau: you got it.. that’s the issue. there's a pre commit hook that ends up calling a python script	23:00
	→ madewokherd joined	23:03
	→ pizdets joined	23:04
adonis	cousteau: heres the script: github.com/hallettj/git-format-staged/releases/tag/v3.0.0 and what do you see for version 3.0.0? A fix to use python3, nice..	23:04
	→ dvanloon7 joined	23:09
	dvanloon7 → dvanloon	23:09
	← sa0 left	23:09
	← Akiva left	23:10
cousteau	ah, cool :)	23:10
	honestly I have no idea how I guessed that	23:10
	→ sa0 joined	23:11
	← sa0 left	23:15
	→ parsnip joined	23:15
	→ Akiva joined	23:27
	→ bertvvvs joined	23:31
	← gurkenglas left	23:32
	← kexec left	23:33
	← DNH left	23:36
	→ TheCatBehemoth joined	23:41
ramblebamble	ok just to wrap things up, another\|, apparently there isn't a way at least non that I could see. Then lightweight tags it is with changes on the CI/CD side. thanks for th support and ear. 'till next time	23:44
	← TheCatBehemoth left	23:45
	← wakeup left	23:46
	← rgrinberg left	23:47
	← ramblebamble left	23:47
	→ skapata joined	23:53
	← skapata left	23:53
	→ skapata joined	23:53

Logs Search ←Prev date Next date→

Channels Documentation