Author Topic: Resources for learning git? (Read 49306 times)

phitsc · « **Reply #25 on:** October 01, 2015, 02:06 PM »

I can recommend this talk for git users beyond the basics who want to learn about some more advanced (well, not too advanced) git stuff. It's very concise; only half an hour.

ewemoa · « **Reply #26 on:** October 01, 2015, 05:27 PM »

Hadn't seen that one. Thanks for sharing!

Here might be the slides:

https://speakerdeck....wolfboy/advanced-git

FWIW, the fourth side gives an overview of what's covered.

ewemoa · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2015, 07:14 PM »

I found the explanation of rebase in terms of cherry-picking to be useful and diagrams seemed appropriately employed in explanations (will there be a UI at some point that allows manipulation of repositories via graphical means? [1]).

In general I found the order of presentation to be sensible. A bit odd at times where things that seemed quite basic were explained given the title of the talk (e.g. about abbreviating commit hashes), but found it worth watching.

Thanks again, phitsc.

[1] Came across this recently: https://github.com/FredrikNoren/ungit

Tuxman · « **Reply #28 on:** October 05, 2015, 03:11 AM »

git is dead.
Use hg.

ewemoa · « **Reply #29 on:** October 05, 2015, 03:20 AM »

I used to use Mercurial, but haven't lately.

Tuxman · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2015, 03:21 AM »

Why not?

Jibz · « **Reply #31 on:** October 05, 2015, 04:25 AM »

git is dead.
Use hg.
-Tuxman (October 05, 2015, 03:11 AM)

Could you elaborate on why you think so?

Tuxman · « **Reply #32 on:** October 05, 2015, 04:30 AM »

git suffers from the wrong people using it. As everyone is using git, the whole thing is a growing bubble. Waiting for the explosion...

f0dder · « **Reply #33 on:** October 05, 2015, 03:21 PM »

git suffers from the wrong people using it. As everyone is using git, the whole thing is a growing bubble. Waiting for the explosion...
-Tuxman (October 05, 2015, 04:30 AM)

How is that even supposed to make sense?

wraith808 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 05, 2015, 09:04 PM »

git suffers from the wrong people using it. As everyone is using git, the whole thing is a growing bubble. Waiting for the explosion...
-Tuxman (October 05, 2015, 04:30 AM)
How is that even supposed to make sense?
-f0dder (October 05, 2015, 03:21 PM)

Don't. Just don't. It doesn't make any sense, other than the fact that it's elitist prating. Take it from me... just drop it.

Deozaan · « **Reply #35 on:** October 06, 2015, 07:56 PM »

I recently came across this PDF: Git from the Bottom Up. It may have been posted on DC before. Perhaps even in this very thread. I didn't bother to check, and I don't remember how I came across the link. Honestly I haven't gotten very far (about page 9) but it seems to be a nice explanation of how Git works so far.

[EDIT]I just checked and indeed, this PDF was linked in this very thread. That's probably where I found it.

[/EDIT]

I really like some of the ideas behind Git (such as how blobs automatically handle de-duplication of data), but I hate the tools I've used to try to interact with Git. That is why I still much prefer Mercurial. (That's not to say I don't have my gripes about the tools I use for Hg.)

Tuxman · « **Reply #36 on:** October 06, 2015, 07:59 PM »

At least hg comes with native tools on Windows.

wraith808 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 06, 2015, 08:11 PM »

At least hg comes with native tools on Windows.
-Tuxman (October 06, 2015, 07:59 PM)

Git does too. It's OK that you don't like it. But it's also OK that others do. Just like it's OK if you use BSD alongside Windows.

(have to check his basement thread to get the joke on that one.)

Tuxman · « **Reply #38 on:** October 06, 2015, 08:13 PM »

No, it does not. Unless you have a weird definition of "native".

wraith808 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2015, 09:28 PM »

No, it does not. Unless you have a weird definition of "native".
-Tuxman (October 06, 2015, 08:13 PM)

Native meaning compiled for Windows. Yes it does. Perhaps not the best, but it does.

ewemoa · « **Reply #40 on:** October 07, 2015, 01:11 AM »

Why not?
-Tuxman (October 05, 2015, 03:21 AM)

I don'r recall clearly

I think it had to do with a hiatus and having picked up git along the way.

ewemoa · « **Reply #41 on:** October 07, 2015, 01:25 AM »

I really like some of the ideas behind Git (such as how blobs automatically handle de-duplication of data), but I hate the tools I've used to try to interact with Git.
-Deozaan (October 06, 2015, 07:56 PM)

Which ones have you tried?

I also wasn't too happy with many of the tools I tried -- a couple that helped a fair bit though were SmartGit(Hg) and magit. These days the command line seems sufficient for many tasks, but while still learning the ropes, I found the aforementioned tools to be handy.

f0dder · « **Reply #42 on:** October 09, 2015, 03:56 PM »

No, it does not. Unless you have a weird definition of "native".
-Tuxman (October 06, 2015, 08:13 PM)

What is your definition of native? What makes the Windows version of Git disqualify as being native?

Tuxman · « **Reply #43 on:** October 09, 2015, 03:57 PM »

Last time I checked, the Windows version of git was a weird cross-compiled Cygwin build.

f0dder · « **Reply #44 on:** October 09, 2015, 06:45 PM »

Last time I checked, the Windows version of git was a weird cross-compiled Cygwin build.
-Tuxman (October 09, 2015, 03:57 PM)

Dunno if I've ever seen that - but even if I'm not a fan of Cygwin, that would still classify as native.

And all the Windows builds of Git I've used have been MinGW builds, anyway - and it's what https://git-scm.com/ offers. Yes, that's a big package that includes a bunch of unixy tools, and it would be nice if there was a minimal package that included just the necessary core commandline tools.

But hey, Mercurial requires Python, so that's even less "native"

Tuxman · « **Reply #45 on:** October 09, 2015, 06:52 PM »

that would still classify as native.
-f0dder (October 09, 2015, 06:45 PM)

No.

BTW: How many languages does the git "native" Windows version actually use? Mercurial uses one...

f0dder · « **Reply #46 on:** October 13, 2015, 06:50 AM »

that would still classify as native.
-f0dder (October 09, 2015, 06:45 PM)
No.
-Tuxman (October 09, 2015, 06:52 PM)

Then answer my previous question: "What is your definition of native?" - and, while you're add it, elaborate on why it matters.

BTW: How many languages does the git "native" Windows version actually use? Mercurial uses one...
-Tuxman (October 09, 2015, 06:52 PM)

Mercurial is a mix of Python and native modules - core Git is C and shell scripts (and I haven't checked what portion is shell scripts these days).

It would be nice if there was a (maintained) "Git core" package, but the maintainers have decided that most people are better off with the full package... to which I'd have to agree.

Tuxman · « **Reply #47 on:** October 13, 2015, 11:57 AM »

Then answer my previous question: "What is your definition of native?" - and, while you're add it, elaborate on why it matters.
-f0dder (October 13, 2015, 06:50 AM)

Native equals "not requiring some weird emulation layer", and it matters because of performance, maintainability and quality.

mwb1100 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 13, 2015, 12:49 PM »

I get my Windows git from nuwen's MinGW package: http://nuwen.net/mingw.html

Stephan Lavavej builds the package himself with the MinGW compiler he builds himself. The MinGW distro includes some other Unix-y tools compiled for native Win32. See the website for details.

A nice aspect of the package is that you just unzip it and put it on your path - nothing else is involved in the install.

One possible drawback is that it supports x64 only - both as a host for the tools and as the target for whatever you might build with the compiler. He considers x86 obsolete.

Tuxman · « **Reply #49 on:** October 13, 2015, 01:43 PM »

MinGW is an emulation layer.