Disqus - Latest Comments for chacon

Re: Talks.GitHub

chacon — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:37:55 -0000

The URL for the styrofoam recycle site is wastetowaves.org to save you some seeking if you're looking for that.

Re: Fuselage!!

chacon — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:11:43 -0000

This is pretty awesome. Let me know if the Git Data API is enough or you need something else.

Re: Pro Git - Reset Demystified

chacon — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:51:21 -0000

Yes, this is difficult to explain simply. I try to clarify it in the Checkout section, but for the purposes of most mental framing you have to do when trying to understand reset, I felt it more helpful to keep thinking of HEAD as the commit it eventually references - even when you're moving the branch HEAD points to, that's still changing the commit HEAD references. I'll try to keep your confusion in mind when I eventually modify this post to put in the book itself to see if I can make it clearer.

Re: Pro Git - Reset Demystified

chacon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:29:31 -0000

it has not yet - at some point soon, i will roll all of these posts into chapters and sections of the book and regenerate the multiple ebook versions. i got a couple more posts to go before i want to do that though.

Re: Pro Git - Reset Demystified

chacon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:18:06 -0000

I did so in the Workflow section. Search for those strings in the article to find where I explain exactly that.

Re: Pro Git - Reset Demystified

chacon — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:16:31 -0000

git show [commit]:file.txt > file.txt

Re: Pro Git - Pro Git on your iPad

chacon — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:36:22 -0000

thanks for the feedback, though I thought I made it clear that client side hooks are not enforceable unless everyone is working on a shared server. there are good security reasons for this - you can't clone something from github or something and have it setup a script as a hook that could be malicious. most places will have the hooks in a subdirectory of the repo and a script that will install them locally and set them up, then enforce stuff on the server side. this is really the only safe way to handle this.

Re: Separating Content From Style

chacon — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:01:34 -0000

no problem. thanks for using it.

Re: Pro Git - Smart HTTP Transport

chacon — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:19:20 -0000

Bit of an update: GitHub now supports this protocol, if you're using a newer Git: http://github.com/blog/642-...

Re: Pro Git - Smart HTTP Transport

chacon — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:21:48 -0000

Yes, the client will fall back to trying the old method. When you fetch, does it do the ref walking (printing out all the shas) or does it look like a normal fetch/clone? Because it could be your client is not new enough (>=1.6.6) or your server is misconfigured. Either would cause the client to fall back on the older push method which was DAV based. You should be able to tell via the Apache logging if the request is getting to the backend or not.

Re: Pro Git - Replace Kicker

chacon — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:04:30 -0000

Thanks! That's a good point - I don't always do that on purpose. I think for-each-ref and it's use in scripting Git would be a good candidate for another article - I'll add it to the list.

Re: Pro Git - Undoing Merges

chacon — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:10:47 -0000

Reading this again - was this meant for the other post (on Grack?)

Re: Pro Git - Undoing Merges

chacon — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:09:53 -0000

I'm going to try to do replace refs in an upcoming post - I'll mention that.

Re: Pro Git - Undoing Merges

chacon — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:08:44 -0000

That's interesting - I honestly didn't know that. I likewise have no idea if upload-pack and receive-pack actually work properly on Windows, which the Grack wrapper directly calls. I would assume it would - let me know if you get it working, I'm pretty curious.

Re: Pro Git - Smart HTTP Transport

chacon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:43:27 -0000

that's entirely up to codaset if they're going to implement and support that. it's not automatic, the servers need to be setup, obviously.

Re: Pro Git - Smart HTTP Transport

chacon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:21:34 -0000

i assume you're asking specifically about GitHub here, not smart-http in general. the answer in that case is 'yes', we are planning on supporting all repositories over https for authenticated access.

Re: Pro Git - Undoing Merges

chacon — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:32:58 -0000

thanks - i'll try to fix that. it might take FB a bit to update itself.

Re: Pro Git - Undoing Merges

chacon — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:32:17 -0000

I'm an idiot - I knew that. I've updated the post.

Re: The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git / Steve Losh

chacon — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:14:31 -0000

I agree with much of this, but just to defend my site super quickly, I still feel that Git's branching model is still an advantage over Hg and that it is 'cheaper'. As of the last time I checked, Hg still takes longer in absolute time to create a new branch and Hg lightweight branches are very difficult to get rid of later, which I would argue makes them more heavyweight. It's true that it's more difficult to create anonymous branches in Git, but I would rather have the context of at least some description, so I don't really see that as an advantage, and definitely doesn't make it 'cheaper'. Hg users have created the 'bookmarks' extension to try to emulate Gits branching model, but there are still a few issues with it, specifically in the area of sharing and collaborating via those branches. I try to keep that site basically up to date, but I don't think that your argument with respect to Hg/Git here is very accurate. If you still disagree, that's cool - but I wanted to point out that the discrepancy is not due to ignorance or quantifiable inaccuracy on my part, but rather subjective disagreement between you and I.

Re: Pro Git - Welcome to the Pro Git website

chacon — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:42:33 -0000

There is certainly no rule, but as the book is "Pro Git", in most professional situations it is probably a good idea to have something that the team uses to do releases off of or find a golden copy. If there are several, someone has to integrate from each and push to the others or changes won't get propagated. Then that person is responsible for merge conflicts between the teams, which they likely don't want to do. In most organizations (commercial or open source projects), one of the remote repositories is likely to be thought of as 'blessed' by at least most of the team. If there is another, I think that would be more likely considered a 'fork' in the traditional, more negative sense of the phrase.

Re: Pro Git - The Gory Details

chacon — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:29:37 -0000

Yes, you can either email me at [ schacon at gmail ] or you can fork the source on github and send me a pull request. Or leave a comment here with details. Thanks!

Re: Pro Git - Welcome to the Pro Git website

chacon — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:24:41 -0000

There will be an official APress ebook version for sale, though someone made a sort of "print to file" version that you can get here: http://redraftable.com/temp...

Re: Pro Git - Welcome to the Pro Git website

chacon — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:23:32 -0000

Nevermind - davedash pushed a fix for this typo to his fork on GitHub and I just pulled it in.

Re: Pro Git - Welcome to the Pro Git website

chacon — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:07:28 -0000

thanks!

Re: Pro Git - Welcome to the Pro Git website

chacon — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:06:07 -0000

thanks!