will give you a git repo without a working set (just the contents typically in the .git directory). This allows you to create things like `foo.git` instead of `foo/.git`.
“origin” is also just the default name for the cloned remote. It could be called anything, and you can have as many remotes as you’d like. You can even namespace where you push back to the same remotes by changing fetch and push paths. At one company it was common to push back to `$user/$feature` to avoid polluting the root namespace with personal branches. It was also common to have `backup/$user` for pushing having a backup of an entire local repo.
I often add a hostname namespace when I’m working from multiple hosts and then push between them directly to another instead of going back to a central server.
For a small static site repo that has documents and server config, I have a remote like:
So I can push from my computer directly to that server, but those branches won’t overwrite the server’s branches. It acts like a reverse `git pull`, which can be useful for firewalls and other situations where my laptop wouldn’t be routable.
is another good one to know, it also makes a bare repository that is an exact clone (including all branches, tags, notes, etc) of a remote repo. Unlike a normal clone that is set up for local tracking branches of the remote.
It doesn't include pull requests, when cloning from github, though.
I've used this method to make a backup of our 80+ repo's at a previous company, just grab the url's from the api & run the git clone in a for loop. Works great!
> It doesn't include pull requests, when cloning from github, though.
Because GitHub pull requests are a proprietary, centralized, cloud-dependent reimplementation of `git request-pull`.
How the "free software" world slid head first into a proprietary cloud-based "open source" world still boils my blood. Congrats, Microsoft loves and owns it all, isn't that what what we always wanted?
When this kind of “sliding” happens it’s usually because the base implementation was missing functionality. Turns out CLI interfaces by themselves are (from a usability perspective) incomplete for the kind of collaboration git was designed to facilitate.
In another post discussion, someone suggested git as an alternative to overleaf, a Google Docs for latex... I guess there are plenty of people with blind spots for things that are technically possible, and usabel to experts, and UI that actually empowers much broader classes of users to wield the feature.
If you actually use the live collaboration features of overleaf, sure, it’s not a replacement. But lots of people use overleaf to write latex by themselves. The experience is just so much worse than developing locally and tracking changes with git.
> Turns out CLI interfaces by themselves are (from a usability perspective) incomplete for the kind of collaboration git was designed to facilitate.
git was designed to facilitate the collaboration scheme of the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which is, as you might guess... a mailing list.
Rather than a pull-request (which tries to repurpose git's branching infrastructure to support collaboration), the intended unit of in-the-large contribution / collaboration in git is supposed to be the patch.
The patch contribution workflow is entirely CLI-based... if you use a CLI mail client (like Linus Torvalds did at the time git was designed.)
The core "technology" of this is, on the contributor side:
1. "trailer" fields on commits (for things like `Fixes`, `Link`, `Reported-By`, etc)
2. `git format-patch`, with flags like `--cover-letter` (this is where the thing you'd think of as the "PR description" goes), `--reroll-count`, etc.
3. a codebase-specific script like Linux's `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl`, to parse out (from source-file-embedded headers) the set of people to notify explicitly about the patch — this is analogous to a PR's concept of "Assignees" + "Reviewers"
4. `git send-email`, feeding in the patch-series generated in step 2, and targeting the recipients list from step 3. (This sends out a separate email for each patch in the series, but in such a way that the messages get threaded to appear as a single conversation thread in modern email clients.)
And on the maintainer side:
5. `s ~/patches/patch-foo.mbox` (i.e. a command in a CLI email client like mutt(1), in the context of the patch-series thread, to save the thread to an .mbox file)
6. `git am -3 --scissors ~/patches/patch-foo.mbox` to split the patch-series mbox file back into individual patches, convert them back into an annotated commit-series, and build that into a topic branch for testing and merging.
Subsystem maintainers, meanwhile, didn't use patches to get topic branches "upstream" [= in Linus's git repo]. Linus just had the subsystem maintainers as git-remotes, and then, when nudged, fetched their integration branches, reviewed them, and merged them, with any communication about this occurring informally out-of-band. In other words, the patch flow was for low-trust collaboration, while direct fetch was for high-trust collaboration.
Interestingly, in the LKML context, `git request-pull` is simply a formalization of the high-trust collaboration workflow (specifically, the out-of-band "hey, fetch my branches and review them" nudge email). It's not used for contribution, only integration; and it doesn't really do anything you can't do with an email — its only real advantages are in keeping the history of those requests within the repo itself, and for forcing requests to be specified in terms of exact git refs to prevent any confusion.
There's basically 2 major schools of thought for submitting patches under git:
* Pile of commits - each individual commit doesn't matter as much as they all work combined. As a general rule, the only requirement for a valid patch is that the final version does what you say it does. Either the final result is squashed together entirely and then merged onto "master" (or whatever branch you've set up to be the "stable" one) or it's all piled together. Keeping the commit history one linear sequence of events is the single most important element here - if you submit a patch, you will not be updating the git hashes because it could force people to reclone your version of the code and that makes it complicated. This is pretty easy to mentally wrap your head around for a small project, but for larger projects quickly makes a lot of the organizatory tools git gives you filled with junk commits that you have to filter through. Most git forges encourage this PR system because it's again, newbie friendly.
* Patch series. Here, a patch isn't so much a series of commits you keep adding onto, but is instead a much smaller set of commits that you curate into its "most perfect form" - each individual commit has its own purpose and they don't/shouldn't bleed into each other. It's totally okay to change the contents of a patch series, because until it's merged, the history of the patch series is irrelevant as far as git is concerned. This is basically how the LKML (and other mailing list based) software development works, but it can be difficult to wrap your head around (+years of advice that "changing history" is the biggest sin you can do with git, so don't you dare!). It tends to work the best with larger projects, while being completely overkill for a smaller tool. Most forges usually offer poor support for patch series based development, unless the forge is completely aimed at doing it that way.
You normally have one patch per commit. The patch is the diff between that commit and its parent. (I forget how git format-patch handles the case where there are two parents.)
> (I forget how git format-patch handles the case where there are two parents.)
As per [0] merge commits are dropped:
Note that format-patch will omit merge commits from the output, even if they are part of the requested range. A simple "patch" does not include enough information for the receiving end to reproduce the same merge commit.
I originally thought it would use --first-parent (so just diff vs the first parent, which is what I would want) but apparently no! It is possible to get this behaviour using git log as detailed in this great write-up [1].
If that's the case I'm assuming the commit itself is quite large then? Or maybe it would more accurate to say it can be large if all the changes logically go together?
I'm thinking in terms of what I often see from people I work with, where a PR is normally made up of lots of small commits.
The idea is that you divide a large change into a series of small commits that each make sense in isolation, so that Linus or Greg Kroah-Hartman or whoever is looking at your proposed change can understand it as quickly as possible—hopefully in order to accept it, rather than to reject it.
I think the point I always get stuck on is how small is "small" when we're talking about commits/patches. Like if you're adding a new feature (to anything, not necessarily the Linux Kernel), should the entire feature be a single commit or several smaller commits? I go back and forth on this all the time, and if you research you're gonna see a ton of different opinions. I've seen some people argue a commit should basically only be a couple lines of code changed, and others argue it should be the entire feature.
You commonly hear Linus talk about commits/patches having very detailed descriptions attached to them. I have trouble believing people would have time for that if each commit was only a few lines, and larger features were spread out over hundreds of commits.
When I'm reviewing commits, I find it useful to see refactoring, which doesn't change behavior, separated from functional changes, and for each commit to leave the tree in a working, testable state. This is also helpful for git bisect.
Often, a change to a new working state is necessarily bigger than a couple of lines, or one of the lines has to get removed later.
I don't want to have to say, "Hmm, I wonder if this will work at the end of the file?" and spend a long time figuring out that it won't, then see that the problem is fixed later in the patch series.
It still blows my mind how git has lost it's original ideas of decentralized development because of github and how github, a for-profit - centralized - close-sourced forge, became the center for lots of important open source projects. We need radicle, forgejo, gitea to catch up even more!
It didn't really lose the original ideas. It just never learned that people don't want to use it the way kernel devs want to use it. Git never provided an easy github-like experience, so GitHub took over. Turns out devs in general are not into the "setup completely independent public mailing lists for projects" idea.
> Turns out devs in general are not into the "setup completely independent public mailing lists for projects" idea.
My feeling is that devs in general are not into the "learning how to use tools" idea.
They don't want to learn the git basics, they don't want to learn the cmake basics, ...
I mean that as an observation more than a criticism. But to me, the fact that git was designed for those who want to learn powerful tools is a feature. Those who don't can use Microsoft. It all works in the end.
Fun fact: if I want to open source my code but not get contributions (or rather feature requests by people who probably won't ever contribute), I put my git repo on anything that is not GitHub. It feels like most professional devs don't know how to handle anything that is not on GitHub :-). Bonus point for SourceHut: if someone manages to send a proper patch on the mailing list, it usually means that they know what they are doing.
> My feeling is that devs in general are not into the "learning how to use tools" idea
Well, the devs learnt how to use Github, didn't they? Seems like people CAN learn things that are useful. I can also make the argument that Github pull requests are actually more powerful than git request-pull in addition to having a nicer UI/UX.
Being upset that people aren't using git request-pull is like the creator of Brainfuck being upset that scientists aren't using Brainfuck instead of something more powerful and has a better UI/UX like Python. It's kinda obvious which one is better to use...
> My feeling is that devs in general are not into the "learning how to use tools" idea.
Given the number of vim, emacs, nix, git, i3, etc. users who are proud of it and all the customisations they do, I don't think so. Like, there will be a decent group, but not generalisable to "devs".
For me the largest advantage of Git was being able to easily switch branches. Previously I'd have to have multiple copies of an entire source repo on my machine if I wanted to work on multiple things at the same time. Likewise a patch set going through CR meant an entire folder on my machine was frozen until I got feed back.
Not having to email complex patches was another huge plus. I was at Microsoft at the time and they had home made scripts (probably Perl or VBS, but I forget what) that applied patches to a repo.
It sucked.
Git branch alone was worth the cost of changing over.
I once worked at a smaller company that didn't want to shell out for github and we just hosted repos on some VM and used the ssh method. It worked. I just found it to be kind of clunky having come from a bigger place that was doing enterprise source control management with Perforce of all things. Github as a product was fairly new back then, but everyone was trying to switch over to Git for resume reasons there. So then I go to this smaller place using git in the classic manner.
I don’t think it’s really that surprising. git didn’t become popular because it was decentralised, it just happened to be. So it stands to reason that part doesn’t get emphasised a ton.
It did become popular because it was decentralized, but the specific features that this enabled were less about not depending on a central server, and more about being able to work with the same repo locally with ease without having to be online for most operations (as was the case with Subversion etc). Git lets me have a complete local copy of the source with all the history, branches etc in it, so anything that doesn't require looking at the issues can be done offline if you did a sync recently.
The other big point was local branches. Before DVCS, the concept of a "local branch" was generally not a thing. But now you could suddenly create a branch for each separate issue and easily switch between them while isolating unrelated changes.
It's not the interface, it's the web hosting. People want a free destination server that's up 24/7 to store their repository.
If it was only the web interface, people could locally install GitLab or Gitea to get a web browser UI. (Or use whatever modern IDE code editor to have a GUI instead of a CLI for git commands.) But doing that still doesn't solve what GitHub solves: a public server to host the files, issue tracking, etc.
Before git & Github, people put source code for public access on SourceForge and CodeProject. The reason was the same: a zero-cost way to share code with everybody.
GitLab is around a decade old, is a solid enterprise product and has always had a very similar interface to GitHub, at times even drawing criticism for being too similar. There's more to it than that.
> “origin” is also just the default name for the cloned remote. It could be called anything, and you can have as many remotes as you’d like.
One remote can also hold more URLs! This is arguably more obscure (Eclipse's EGit doesn't even support it), but works wonders for my workflow, since I want to push to multiple mirrors at the same time.
Whenever I fork a repo I rename origin to “fork” and then add the parent repo as a remote named “upstream” so i can pull from that, rebase any of my own changes in to, and push to fork as needed.
Multiple remotes is also how you can combine multiple repos into one monorepo by just fetching and pulling from each one, maybe into different subdirectories to avoid path collisions.
This sounds like submodules, but I'm guessing it's completely orthogonal ... multiple distinct remotes for the same _repository_, all of them checked out to different sub-paths; does that result in all the remotes winding up with all the commits for all the shared repositories when you push, or can you "subset" the changes as well?
> “origin” is also just the default name for the cloned remote
I don't have a central dotfiles repo anymore (that I would always to forget to push to); I have SSH access to my devices - via tailscale - anyway so I'm doing
git remote add $hostname $hostname:.config
and can cd ~/.config && git fetch/pull/rebase $hostname anytime from anywhere.
I've been considering a bare repo + setting $GITDIR (e.g via direnv) but somehow the dead simple simplicity has trumped the lack of push ability
I always thought it would have been better, and less confusing for newcomers, if GitHub had named the default remote “github”, instead of origin, in the examples.
Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/.
Nevertheless, to avoid ambiguity I usually name my personal forks on GitHub gh-<username>.
No, it's a normal feature of Git. If I want you to pull my changes, I need to host those changes somewhere that you can access. If you and I are both just using ssh access to our separate Apache servers, for example, I am going to have to push my changes to a fork on my server before you can pull them.
And of course in Git every clone is a fork.
AGit seems to be a new alternative where apparently you can push a new branch to someone else's repository that you don't normally have access to, but that's never guaranteed to be possible, and is certainly very idiosyncratic.
That's backwards. In Github every fork is just a git clone. Before GitHub commandeered the term "fork' was already in common use and it had a completely different meaning.
Arguably the OG workflow to submit your code is `git send-email`, and that also doesn't require an additional third clone on the same hosting platform as the target repository.
All those workflows are just as valid as the others, I was just pointing out that the way github does it is not the only way it can be done.
> Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/.
Ah yes, I'm sure the remote being called "origin" is what confuses people when they have to push to a refspec with push options. That's so much more straightforward than a button "create pull request".
As far as I'm concerned the problem isn't that one is easier than the other.
It's that in the github case it completely routes around the git client.
With AGit+gitea or forgejo you can either click your "create pull request" button,
or make a pull request right from the git client. One is necessarily going to require more information than the other to reach the destination...
It's like arguing that instead of having salad or fries on the menu with your entree they should only serve fries.
agreed, you'd need a second name anyway. and probably "origin" and "upstream" is nicer than "github" and "my-fork" because.. the convention seems like it should apply to all the other git hosts too: codeberg, sourcehut, tfs, etc
Git was always explicitly a decentralized, "peer to peer" version control system, as opposed to centralized ones like SVN, with nothing in the protocol itself that makes a distinction between a "server" and a "client". Using it in a centralized fashion is just a workflow that you choose to use (or, realistically, one that somebody else chose for you). Any clone of a repository can be a remote to any other clone, and you can easily have a "git server" (ie. just another directory) in your local filesystem, which is a perfectly reasonable workflow in some cases.
There was a thread not to long ago where people were conflating git with GitHub. Git is an incredible tool (after coming from SVN/CVS/p4/source safe) that stands on its own apart from hosting providers.
And GitHub naturally has done nothing to disabuse people of the interpretation that git = GitHub. Meanwhile, the actual raison d'etre for the existence of git of course doesn't use GitHub, or the "pull request" based workflow that GitHub invented and is also not anything intrinsic to git in any way.
I have a use case just for this. Sometimes my internet goes down while I'm working on my desktop computer. I'll put my work in a branch and push it to my laptop, then go to a coffee shop to continue my work.
It's a little more complex than that. Yes git can work in a peer-to-peer fashion, but the porcelain is definitely set up for a hub-and-spoke model, given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history.
There's other stuff too, like git submodules can't be configured to reference another branch on the local repository and then be cloned correctly, only another remote.
> given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history
When you clone you get the full remote history and all remote branches (by default). That’s painfully true when you have a repo with large binary blobs (and the reason git-lfs and others exist).
You're right, I got that part wrong, git actually fetches all of the remote commits (but not all of the refs, many things are missing, for instance notes).
But a clone of your clone is not going to work the same way, since remote branches are not cloned by default, either. So it'll only have partial history. This is what I was thinking about.
> given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history
You may be thinking of the optional -depth switch, which allows you to create shallow clones that don't have the full history. If you don't include that, you'll get the full history when cloning.
I'd say git submodules have such an awkward UX that should probably not be used except in very rare and organized cases. I've done it before but it has to be worth it.
I can't get over my fear of subtrees after accidentally nuking one of my repos by doing a rebase across the subtree commit. I've found that using worktrees, with a script in the main branch to set up the worktrees, works pretty well to split history across multiple branches, like what you might want in a monorepo.
Sadly doing a monorepo this way with pnpm doesn't work, since pnpm doesn't enforce package version requirements inside of a pnpm workspace. And it doesn't record installed version information for linked packages either.
Yes, I encourage my co-workers, when pushing to a common repo, to use `$user/$whatever` exactly to have their own namespace. The main selling point I'm making is that it makes cleanup of old branches easier, and less conflict-prone.
Tangentially related: when you have multiple local checkouts, often `git worktree` is more convenient than having completely independent local repository. See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree
You can of course also run a local site generator here as well, although for dev3 I took a lighter-weight approach — I just checked in the HEADER.html file that Apache FancyIndexing defaults to including above the file directory listing and tweaked some content-types in the .htaccess file.
This could still fail to update the checkout if it has local changes, but only if they create a merge conflict, and it won't fail to update the bare repo, which is probably what your other checkouts are cloned from and therefore where they'll be pulling from.
For a USB drive, I would be more likely to use a bundle. Intended for offline distribution of a repository. Plus it is a single file, so you do not have to pay the transfer overhead of many small files.
You can repack your repo before you clone it onto the pendrive, and once it's there you can push and pull to it many times. Granted, pendrives are fast enough these days that copying an entire bundle every time is probably fine.
regarding that post-update script, can you explain?
I would think you'd want to
cd /home/kragen/public_html/sw/dev3
git update-server-info
git pull
..in that order.
And I wouldn't think you'd need to run git update-server-info again, after git pull. My understanding isthe update-server-info makes updates to info/refs , which is necessary _after a push_.
The first update-server-info is running in the bare repo, which is the place I just pushed to, which is where sw/dev3 is going to pull from.
I'm not sure the second update-server-info is necessary.
If you're asking about the env -u, that's because Git sets that variable so that commands know which repo they're in even if you cd somewhere else, which is exactly what I don't want.
So my friend and I were trying to learn some coding together. We had our laptops on the same wifi and I wanted us to use git without depending on GitHub, but I was completely stumped as to how to actually connect us together. I don't want us to setup SSH servers on each other's laptops, giving each other full access to our computers, and sending patches to each other across the living room seems overkill when we're just sitting around hacking away on our keyboards wanting to share what we've come up with every few minutes or so. I still have no idea how I would solve this. Maybe I'd just try coding with a syncthing directory shared between us, but then that's totally giving up on git
I've been using git since 2007, this only dawned on me last year.
Git is especially prone to the sort of confusion where all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways so the culture is to just wing it until you're your own unique kind of wizard who can't tie his shoes because he favors sandals anyhow.
I like this comment. Over the years I've always found that whenever I see others using git, everyone uses it in different way and even for different purposes. This has left me really confused about what is the standard practice of Git exactly.
This is because people have different needs, Git is trying to cover too many things, there are multiple ways to achieve goals and therefore there is no standard practice. There is no single, standard way to cook chicken breast and that is a way simpler thing.
The solution is to set team/department standards inside companies or use whatever you need as a single contributor. I saw attempts to standardize across a company that is quite decentralized and it failed every time.
> there are multiple ways to achieve goals and therefore there is no standard practice
This is ultimately where, and why, github succeeded. It's not that it was free for open source. It's that it ironed out lots of kinks in a common group flow.
Git is a cultural miracle, and maybe it wouldn't have got its early traction if it had been overly prescriptive or proscriptive, but more focus on those workflows earlier on would have changed history.
This sort of thing is part of the problem. If it takes reading such a long manual to understand how to properly use Git, it's no wonder everyone's workflow is different.
I don't see it as a problem that everyone's workflow is different, and, separately, I don't see it as a problem that it takes reading such a long manual to understand all the possibilities of Git. There is no royal road to geometry. Pro Git is a lot shorter than the textbook I learned calculus from.
Unlike calculus, though, you can learn enough about Git to use it usefully in ten minutes. Maybe this sets people up for disappointment when they find out that afterwards their progress isn't that fast.
Agreed. Back when I first came across git in 2009 I had to re-read the porcelain manual 3 times before I really got it, but then the conceptual understanding has been useful ever since. I have often the guy explaining git to newbies on my team.
Agreed. I'd read the manual if there was something I needed from it, but everything is working fine. Yeah I might've rsynced between some local folders once or twice when I could've used git, maybe that was an inelegant approach, but the marginal cost of that blunder was... about as much time I've spent in this thread so whatever.
The nice thing about knowing more about git is that it unlocks another dimension in editing code. It’s a very powerful version of undo-redo, aka time travelling. Then you start to think in term of changes and patches.
Ane example of that is the suckless philosophy where extra features comes as patches and diff.
With previous version-control systems, such as SVN and CVS, I found that pair programming helps a great deal with this problem. I started using Git after my last pair-programming gig, unfortunately, but I imagine it would help there too.
(I started using Git in 02009, with networking strictly over ssh and, for pulls, HTTP.)
> all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways
What? Knowing that a git repo is just a folder is nowhere near "expert" level. That's basic knowledge, just like knowing that the commits are nodes of a DAG. Sadly, most git users have no idea how the tool works. It's a strange situation, it'd be like if a majority of drivers didn't know how to change gears.
> It's a strange situation, it'd be like if a majority of drivers didn't know how to change gears.
If you literally can't change gears then your choices are a) go nowhere (neutral), b) burn out your clutch (higher gears), or c) burn out your engine (1st gear). All are bad things. Even having an expert come along to put you in the correct gear once, twice, or even ten times won't improve things.
If a programmer doesn't know that git is a folder or that the commits are nodes of a DAG, nothing bad will happen in the short term. And if they have a git expert who can get them unstuck say, five times total, they can probably make it to the end of their career without having to learn those two details of git.
It's an analogy, there's no need to analyze it literally. And no, I've worked with some devs who don't understand git (thankfully I don't anymore) and it was quite a bit more than "five times" they got stuck or messed up the repo on the remote in an annoying way. Sure, if you regularly write code using a bunch of evals or gotos "nothing bad will happen" but it's a very suboptimal way of doing things.
"Expert level knowledge" implies something more to me than simply few people knowing about it. It's ridiculous to say that knowing how to change gears makes you an expert driver, even if a minority know how to do it (such as in the US e.g.)
> just like knowing that the commits are nodes of a DAG
Hello gatekeeping! I have used Git for more than 10 years. I could not explain all of the ins-and-outs of commits, especially that they are "nodes of a DAG". I do just fine, and Git is wonderful to me. Another related example: I would say that 90%+ of .NET and Java users don't intimately understand their virtual machine that runs their code. Hot take: That is fine in 2025; they are still very productive and add lots of value.
"Intimately understand the VM" is not the same as knowing what data structure you're using. It'd be comparable to not knowing the difference between an array and a linked list. Sure you may call it gatekeeping but likewise I may call your style willful ignorance of the basics of the tools you're using. Have you never used rebase or cherry-pick?
My point is only that the understanding is uneven. I'm ready to debate the merits of subtrees vs submodules but I didn't know the folder thing. Am I weird? Yes, but here is a place where weird is commonplace.
In the past I've blown coworkers minds during github outages when I just pulled code from a co-worker's machine and kept working
With remote, if your company stubbornly refuses to use a modern vpn like tailscale, and you can't really network between two computers easily, git format patch and git am, coupled with something like slack messages, works well enough, albeit moderately cumbersome
Yes. I've been subject to claims that a single person can't start a project unless and until an official, centralized repo is setup for them. I've responded with "git init is all that is necessary to get started", but they wouldn't hear it.
Depends, what's the reasoning? Because technically anyone can start a project even without Git. Or even without a computer. Someone can use a pen to write code on a paper.
Depends on what you mean by "a project". If it's policy related, maybe it's company's policy that all code that is written must be stored in a certain way for multitude of reasons.
They don't have a reason. There's no policy that keeps them from doing this. Sure, the whole point is to ultimately have the code in a common place where backups and code review can happen, but if it's a matter of starting something sooner because it takes a few days for the request to flow through to get things set up, they are not constrained by that AT ALL. They can create a git repo with git init immediately, start working, and once the repo is set up in the common area, git push all their work into it. Rather than train people on this, we spend time trying to hasten the common area repo setup time and put additional unneeded burden on the team responsible for that.
It doesn't matter. They are centralized on servers that are ssh accessible, creating it is effectively mkdir and git init.
It's not about how long the action takes, it's about how much the team responsible for that is loaded and can prioritize things. Every team needs more round tuits. Anyone who works in an IT support role knows this. The point is that they can self-service immediately and there is no actual dependency to start writing code and using revision control, but people will trot out any excuse.
But why can't the teams themselves do it? All places I've seen or been to have had teams able to create their own repositories, either they use cloud Git providers like Bitbucket, Gitlab or Github, or they have self hosted Gitlab, Github etc.
Lots of places (unfortunately) restrict repo creation, or CI pipeline creation. The platform team might need to spin up the standard stack for your project, VON access added for AWS environments etc etc. In the sorts of orgs where this happens doing it properly is more important than getting started.
Tons of people never even touch git cli, they use some gui frontend/IDE.
Tons of people who DO use git cli don't know git init. Their whole life was create a project on github and clone it. Anyway initting new project isn't the most "basic" thing with git, it is used less than .01% of total git commands
if you combine the above easily MOST people have no idea about git init
You must work at Microsoft? A pound of paperwork for every new repo really shuts down experimental side projects. I showed my colleagues that we can share code via ssh or (painfully) one-drive anytime instead. They reacted like I was asking them to smoke crack behind the dumpsters. “That’s dangerous, gonna get in trouble, no way bro”
Please, elaborate. I can share my screen with coworkers and talk about all sorts of confidential things, and I can even give them full remote access to control everything if I wished. So why would pushing a some plain text code directly to their machine be so fundamentally different than all the other means of passing bits between our machines?
If you share screen you are in control of what you show, if you give someone SSH access, what would stop them from passing/running a small script to fetch everything you have or doing w/e with your computer? I mean it's a blatant security violation to me. Just no reason to do that.
In large corps you usually have policies to not leave your laptop unattended logged in, in the office, that would be potentially even worse than that.
There is nothing inherently special about code, than say, a confidential marketing deck or sales plan. If they can go a network drive, or a service like One Drive , why can't we put our code there? I'm not talking about the Xbox firmware or the entire Windows source. This is about little one-off projects, highly specialized tooling, or experimental proof-of-concepts that are blocked by bureaucracy.
It's a misguided policy that hurts morale and leaves a tremendous amount of productivity and value on the floor. And I suspect that many of the policies are in place simply because a number of the rule makers aren't aware of how easy it to share the code. Look how many in this thread alone weren't aware of inherent distributability of git repositories, and presumably they're developers. You really think some aging career dev ops that worked at Microsoft for 30 years is going to make sensical policies about some software that was shunned and forbidden only a decade ago?
I mean, it works fine for a few days or weeks, but then it gets corrupted. Doesn't matter if you use Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, whatever.
It's apparently something to do with the many hundreds of file operations git does in a basic operation, and somehow none of the sync implementations can quite handle it all 100.0000% correctly. I'm personally mystified as to why not, but can attest from personal experience (as many people can) that it will get corrupted. I've heard theories that somehow the file operations get applied out of order somewhere in the pipeline.
Among other reasons, the sync engines of these cloud stores all have "conflict detection" algorithms when multiple machines touch the same files, and while a bare repo avoids conflicts in the worktree by not having a worktree, there are still a lot of files that get touched in every git push: the refs, some of the pack files, etc.
When it is a file conflict the sync engines will often drop multiple copies with names like "file (1)" and "file (2)" and so forth. It's sometimes possible to surgically fix a git repo in that state by figuring out which files need to be "file" or "file (1)" or "file (2)" or whatever, but it is not fun.
In theory, a loose objects-only bare repo with `git gc` disabled is more append-only and might be useful in file sync engines like that, but in practice a loose-objects-only bare repo with no `git gc` is not a great experience and certainly not recommended. It's probably better to use something like `git bundle` files in a sync engine context to avoid conflicts. I wonder if anyone has built a useful automation for that.
With bare repos? I was bit by this a few years ago when work switched to "everything on OneDrive" and it seemed fine until one day it wasn't. Following that I did tests with Dropbox and iCloud to find that all could corrupt a regular repo very easily. In the past few months though I've been trying it again with bare repos on iCloud and not had an issue... yet.
I haven't tried it, but I think it's fine if only one person has write access to any given clone. You can pull back and forth between clones freely. It's if you have two Git clients trying to write to the same repo that you'll have problems.
I've put private working copies on NFS and CIFS. NFS worked pretty well (which probably speaks as much to the admins as the tech). Samba mounts on the other hand had all sorts of problems with time stamps that confused not only git, but the build system as well.
Shared write access to the same git repo directory can be done sanely, but you have to get a number of things right (same group for all users, everything group writable, sticky bit on directories, set config core.sharedRepository=group): https://stackoverflow.com/a/29646155
Yes, when you're not on NFS. Maybe it works on NFS but I wouldn't bet my project on it. Locking reliably on NFS is easy to get wrong, and it's a comparatively little-tested scenario now compared to 30 years ago. (You'll notice that the question doesn't even mention the possibility of NFS.) Fortunately at least with Git it's easy to have lots of backups.
That makes me a little less suspicious, and of course the Git developers are well aware of things like concurrency problems and filesystem limitations. But I'd still regard it as an area to be wary of. But only if two clients might be writing to the same repo concurrently.
I read an article not long ago where students coming out of a web dev bootcamp were unable to make a hello world html file and open it in their browser.
We’ve gone so far with elaborate environments and sets to make it easy to learn more advanced things, that many people never learn the very basics. I see this as a real problem.
If somebody asked me if it's possible to scp my git repo over to another box and use it there or vice versa, I would have said, yes, that is possible. Although I would've felt uneasy doing that.
If somebody asked me if git clone ssh:// ... would definitely work, I wouldn't have known out of the gate, although I would have thought it would be neat if it did and maybe it does. I may have thought that maybe there must be some sort of git server process running that would handle it, although it's plausible that it would be possible to just do a script that would handle it from the client side.
And finally, I would've never thought really to necessarily try it out like that, since I've always been using Github, Bitbucket, etc. I have thought of those as permanent, while any boxes I have could be temporary, so not a place where I'd want to store something as important to be under source control.
You’ve always used GitHub but never known it could work over ssh? Isn’t it the default method of cloning when you’re signed in and working on your own repository…?
I have used SSH for GitHub of course, but the thought that I could also use it from any random machine to machine never occurred to me. And when it might occur to me, I would have thought that maybe SSH is used as a mechanism for authentication, but it might still require some further specialized server due to some unknown protocols of mine. I always thought of SSH or HTTPS as means of authentication and talking to the git server rather than the thing that processes cloning.
E.g. maybe the host would have to have something like apt install git-server installed there for it to work. Maybe it wouldn't be available by default.
I do know however that all info required for git in general is available in the directory itself.
Yes, SSH is used as a mechanism for authentication, and it still requires some further specialized server due to some protocols you don't know about. The server is git-upload-pack or git-receive-pack, depending on whether you're pulling or pushing. Your inference that a Linux distribution could conceivably put these in a separate package does seem reasonable, since for example git-gui is a separate package in Debian. I don't know of any distros that do in fact package Git that way, but they certainly could.
IT support and cybersecurity teams responsible for blocking and enforcing network access restriction to "github.com" ... blocked a user request to install "git" locally citing the former policy. The organization in question does IT services, software development, and maintenance as their main business.
There's an interview with Torvalds where he states that his daughter told him that in the computer lab at her college Linus is more known for Git than Linux
Even someone who knows that git isn't GitHub might not be aware that ssh is enough to use git remotely. That's actually the case for me! I'm a HUGE fan of git, I mildly dislike GitHub, and I never knew that ssh was enough to push to a remote repo. Like, how does it even work, I don't need a server? I suspect this is due to my poor understanding of ssh, not my poor understand of git.
Git is distributed, meaning every copy is isolated and does not depends on other's copy. Adding remotes to an instance is mostly giving a name to an URL(URI?) for the fetch, pull, push operation, which exchange commits. As Commits are immutable and forms a chain, it's easy to know when two nodes diverge and conflict resolution can take place.
From the git-fetch(1) manual page:
> Git supports ssh, git, http, and https protocols (in addition, ftp and ftps can be used for fetching, but this is inefficient and deprecated; do not use them).
You only need access to the other node repo information. There's no server. You can also use a simple path and store the other repo on drive.
Doable. It would basically be ssh but without encryption. You'd have to bang out login by hand, but "username\npassword\n" will probably work, might need a sleep inbetween, and of course you'll have to detect successful login too. Oh, and every 0xff byte will have to be escaped with another 0xff
At that point, may as well support raw serial too.
Supporting rlogin on the other hand is probably as simple as GIT_SSH=rlogin
You can think of the ssh://server/folder as a normal /folder. ssh provides auth and encryption to a remote hosted folder but you can forget about it for the purpose of understanding the nature of git model.
The server is git itself, it contains two commands called git-receive-pack and git-upload-pack that it starts through ssh and communicate through stdin/out
SSH is just a transport to get access to the repo information. The particular implementation does not matter (I think). Its configuration is orthogonal to git.
You do, an SSH server needs to be running on the remote if you want to ssh into it, using your ssh client - the `ssh` command on your laptop. It's just not a http server is all.
You start that server using the `sshd` [systemd] service. On VPSs it's enabled by default.
Git supports both http and ssh as the "transport method". So, you can use either. Browsers OTOH only support http.
Edit: hey this is really exciting. For a long time one of the reasons I've loved git (not GitHub) is the elegance of being a piece of software which is decentralized and actually works well. But I'd never actually used the decentralized aspect of it, I've always had a local repo and then defaulted to use GitHub, bitbucket or whatever instead, because I always thought I'd need to install some "git daemon" in order to achieve this and I couldn't be bothered. But now, this is so much more powerful. Linus Torvalds best programmer alive, change my mind.
BTW, a nice example of this general concept is Emacs' TRAMP mode. This is a mode where you can open and manipulate files (and other things) on remote systems simply by typing a remote path in Emacs. Emacs will then simply run ssh/scp to expose or modify the contents of those files, and of course to run any required commands, such as deleting a file.
I mean, you do need an ssh server. Basically ssh can run commands on the remote machine. Most commonly the command would be a shell, but it can also be git commands.
I always found these sort of categorical denigrations to be off base. If most people do think git = github then that's because they were taught it by somebody. A lot of somebodies for "most people". Likely by the same somebodies who also come to places like this. It has always taken a village to raise a child and that is just as true for an infant as a junior programmer. But instead we live in a sad world of "why didn't schools teach person x"
Despite your indignation, the observation that most people think GitHub is git is entirely true. Do you point it out when you spot someone having that mistaken belief? I do.
I don't think it has anything to do with being old, this is what happens when your software gets too complex that nobody even knows the very basics. This is highlighted with the documentation, if the software's documentation becomes lengthy enough that it could be an entire book, you're going to be getting these sorts of articles from time to time. Another highlight is bash, that is a huge man page for what should be a shell.
I didn’t know either - or rather, I had never stopped to consider what a server needs to do to expose a git repo.
But more importantly, I’m not sure why I would want to deploy something by pushing changes to the server. In my mental model the repo contains the SOT, and whatever’s running on the server is ephemeral, so I don’t want to mix those two things.
I guess it’s more comfortable than scp-ing individual files for a hotfix, but how does this beat pushing to the SOT, sshing into the server and pulling changes from there?
There's a lot of configuration possible due to the fact that git is decentralized. I have a copy on my computer which is where I do work. Another on a vps for backup. Then one on the app server which only tracks the `prod` branch. The latter is actually bare, but there's a worktree for the app itself. The worktree is updated via a post-receive hook and I deploy change via a simple `git push server prod`
You actually led me into a dive to learn what worktrees are, how bare repos + worktrees behave differently from a regular clone and how a repo behaves when it’s at the receiving end of a push, so thanks for that!
I’ve never worked with decentralized repos, patches and the like. I think it’s a good moment to grab a book and relearn git beyond shallow usage - and I suspect its interface is a bit too leaky to grok it without understanding the way it works under the hood.
Yep, me. I noticed that you sometimes use ssh:// URLs for GitHub, but I figured it was for authentication purposes only, and that once that step was over, some other thing came into play.
What are some fun/creative ways to do GitHub/GitLab style CI/CD with this method? Some kind of entry point script on push that determines what to do next? How could you decide some kind of variables like what the push was for?
Check the docs for the post-receive hook, it does give everything you need. I don't know what you have in mind by "GitHub/Gitlab style", but it's just a shell script, and you can add in as much yaml as you want to feel good about it.
I actually realized this last week, and have yet to try it. Programming for almost fifty years, using Git for thirteen years, and not an idiot (although there are those who would dispute this, including at times my spouse).
I have encountered it in real life many times. These days I try to give jr's extra space to expose their gaps in things I previously assumed were baseline fundamentals - directories and files, tgz/zip files, etc
I never thought about it. If somebody had asked me, yeah. Of course it makes sense. But it's just one of those things where I haven't thought about possibility.
I imagine larger part of the developer community does not, in fact, know that GitHub is not git and one can get everything they need without feeding their code to Microsoft's AI empire. Just another "Embrace, extend, and extinguish"
It's not "so easy to use without understanding it", it's the opposite it has so much unnecessary complexity (on top of a brilliant simple idea btw), that once people learn how to do what they need, they stop trying to learn any more from the pile of weirdness that is git.
Decades from now, git will be looked back at in a similar but worse version of the way SQL often is -- a terrible interface over a wonderful idea.
I don't think that's true. In my experience it takes time, but once it clicks, it clicks. Sure, there is a bunch of weirdness in there as well, but that starts way further than where your typical git user stops.
I don't think git would end up this popular if it didn't allow to be used in a basic way by just memorizing a few commands without having to understand its repository model (however simple) well.
I was aware that it should be possible to interact directly with another repository on another machine (or, heck, in another directory on the same machine), which implies that ssh access is sufficient, but I was unaware of how that would be done.
There's definitely generational loss about the capabilities of git. In the beginning, git was a new version control option for people to explore, now git is the thing you learn to collaborate on github/lab/ea. I remember the Chagon book coming out as the peak between dense technical explainers and paint by numbers how-tos.
Cannot emphasize this whole notion enough; Very roughly, Github is to git what gmail is to email.
It's mostly probably fine if that's the thing most of everybody wants to use and it works well; but also it's very unwise to forget that the point was NEVER to have a deeply centralized thing -- and that idea is BUILT into the very structure of all of it.
This reminded me of another discussion on HN a few months ago. Wherein I was reflecting on how the entire culture of internet standards has changed over time:
"In the 80s and 90s (and before), it was mainly academics working in the public interest, and hobbyist hackers. Think Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, IETF for web/internet standards, or Dave Winer with RSS. In the 00s onward, it was well-funded corporations and the engineers who worked for them. Think Google. So from the IETF, you have the email protocol standards, with the assumption everyone will run their own servers. But from Google, you get Gmail.
[The web] created a whole new mechanism for user comfort with proprietary fully-hosted software, e.g. Google Docs. This also sidelined many of the efforts to keep user-facing software open source. Such that even among the users who would be most receptive to a push for open protocols and open source software, you have strange compromises like GitHub: a platform that is built atop an open source piece of desktop software (git) and an open source storage format meant to be decentralized (git repo), but which is nonetheless 100% proprietary and centralized (e.g. GitHub.com repo hosting and GitHub Issues)."
From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42760298
Yes. And honestly though, this is the sort of thing that makes me generally proclaim that Free Software and Open Source won.
It was extremely unlikely that it would be some kind of free utopia; but also, it's extremely remarkable what we've been able to keep generally free, or at least with a free-enough option.
Idk if git was designed to not be used in a centralized way. Like all other common CLIs, it was simply designed to work on your PC or server without caring who you are, and nothing stopped a corp from turning it into a product. Torvalds made git and Linux, then he put Linux on Github.
The reason Linus wrote Git was specifically because he was unwilling to accept the centralization of the existing popular source-control systems like CVS and SVN, and Linux's license to the unpopular proprietary decentralized source control system it was using got revoked because Larry McVoy threw a tantrum. Linus needed an open-source alternative, so he tried the unpopular open-source source-control systems like Monotone, but he felt they suffered from both featuritis and inadequate performance, so he wrote a "stupid content tracker" called Git.
"Distributed" was the point and the language their site uses*, not decentralized. It's only described as a convenience and reliability thing in contrast to the mess known as CVS. I haven't seen a note about avoiding one entity having too much power, even if that's a goal some users have in mind. Normally you have one master repo, or "blessed" as the site calls it.
It's like, a Redis cluster is distributed but not decentralized. The ssh protocol is not decentralized. XMPP, Matrix, and Bitcoin are decentralized protocols, first two via federation.
I never thought about this.. I've had the following problem in the past.
Host A, cannot reach official github.com. But Host B can and has a local copy of a repo cloned. So Host B can 'git clone ssh://' from Host A which is essentially equivalent, but just setting origin to Host B instead of github.com, sort of acting as a manual proxy?
What if Host A is natted, so Host B can ssh to Host A but not the reverse, can Host G ssh clone to Host A to push changes?
In the rare times I've needed this, I just 'rsync -av --delete' a repo from B->A.
Git also respects your `~/.shh/config`, which lets you change settings per host. I've set up each of my GitHub accounts with a different "host" so it's easy to switch between them.
> This is a great way to [...] work on server-side files without laggy typing or manual copying
This is the usecase mentioned in the article and it wouldn't work with a bare repo. But if the server your SSH'ing to is just a central point to sync code across machines, then you're right: multiple hoops mentioned in the article are solved by having the central repo bare.
FWIW a single user working on a remote versioned directory is indeed a reasonable use-case for receive.denyCurrentBranch=updateInstead, but IMO the article should have made it clear that it's not necessarily a good choice in general.
In interviews, I've literally asked senior devops engineers and senior software engineers if they have hosted their own git servers and how to initialise one and not a single one has mentioned git init --bare..... which is disconcerting. They can deploy appliances (like gitlab, gitea) and build pipelines just fine, but none of them realized how git actually works underneath and how simple it all is.
Because too many bad interviews are all about ensuring that the candidate knows the exact same 1% of CS/SWE knowledge as the interviewer.
Don't worry, karma dictates when the interviewer goes looking they'll get rejected for not knowing some similarly esoteric graph theory equation or the internal workings of a NIC card.
Too much of our interviewing is reading the interviewer's mind or already knowing the answer to a trick question.
The field is way too vast for anyone to even know a majority, and realistically it's extremely difficult to assess if someone is an expert in a different 1%.
Sometimes I feel like we need a system for just paying folks to see if they can do the job. Or an actually trusted credentialing system where folks can show what they've earned with badges and such.
A better interview question about this subject doesn't assume they have it memorized, but if they can find the answer in a short time with the internet or get paralyzed and give up. It's a very important skill to be able to recognize you are missing information and researching it on the Internet.
For example, one of my most talented engineers didn't really know that much about CS/SWE. However, he had some very talented buddies on a big discord server who could help him figure out anything. I kid you not, this kid with no degree and no experience other than making a small hobby video game would regularly tackle the most challenging projects we had. He'd just ask his buddies when he got stuck and they'd point him to the right blog posts and books. It was like he had a real life TRRPG Contacts stat. He was that hungry and smart enough to listen to his buddies, and then actually clever enough to learn on the job to figure it out. He got done more in a week than the next three engineers of his cohort combined (and this was before LLMs).
So maybe what we should test isn't data stored in the brain but ability to solve a problem given internet access.
In a sense it's anything but obscure, that is, it's one of the most basic of features of the tool and the first thing (well, git init anyway) anyone ever uses.
But that's why people don't know about it, because they skip past the basics because in practice you never use it or need to know about it.
This is the reality of software engineering and the like though - mostly you learn what you need to know, because learning everything is usually wasteful and never used, and there's a lot available.
(I haven't been able to read documentation or a software book end to end in 20 years)
And it didn’t work. You have to ssh to the remote server and “git init” on a path first. How uncivilized.
Bitkeeper and a few other contemporaries would let you just push to a remote path that doesn’t exist yet and it’d create it. Maybe git added this since then, but at the time it seemed like a huge omission to me.
So at first you didn't understand the commands or how git works. You needed a couple more steps to get things working. But apparently you just gave up and you're still complaining about it 20 years later.
Hah, you made me check whether clone's second argument can be a URL. But no, it's explicitly "<directory>", so it can't be used as a equivalent of "git push --mirror" :)
Some time ago, I was on a team of researchers collaborating with a hospital to build some ML models for them. I joined the project somewhat late. There was a big fuss over the fact that the hospital servers were not connected to the internet, so the researchers couldn't use GitHub, so they had been stalled for months. I told them that before GitHub there was `git`, and it is already on the servers... I "set up" a git system for them.
If you want a public facing "read only" ui to public repositories you can use cgit (https://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/about/) to expose them. That will enable others to git clone without using ssh.
I keep my private repositories private and expose a few public ones using cgit.
I sent over a cgit web page for a take home assessment and the interviewer was horribly confused. I assume they have never seen anything apart from github before...
The more I use git, the more I discover more depth to it.
So many features and concepts; it's easy to think you understand the basics, but you need to dig deep into it's origin and rationale to begin to grasp the way of thinking it is built around.
And the API surface area is much larger than one would think, like an iceberg
So I find it really weirdly low level in a way. Probably what is needed is is a higher-level CLI to use it in the most sensible, default way, because certainly the mental model most people use it with is inadequate.
My favorite git trick is using etckeeper & git subtree to manage multiple machines from a single repo . A single git repo can “fan out” to dozens of instances . It’s useful even for “managed” hosts with terraform because etckeeper snapshots config with every change, catching bugs in the terraform config.
During the dev / compile / test flow, git makes a lightweight CI that reduces the exposure to your primary repo . Just run `watch -n 60 make` on the target and push using `git push` . The target can run builds without having any access to your primary (GitHub) repo.
Care to share a little bit more about this? I've been thinking of using git with `--work-tree=/` to track system files, so I'm interested in these "unusual" setups with git. Not sure I got the "fan out" concept here.
Back when I started at my current job... 15 years ago... We had no central git server. No PR workflow. We just git pull-ed from each others machines. It worked better than you would expect.
We then went to using a central bare repo on a shared server, to hosted gitlab(? I think - it was Ruby and broke constantly) eventually landing on GitHub
This is classic git usage. A "pull request" was literally just asking someone to pull from your branch. GitHub co-opted the term for their own thing.
The thing that people really don't seem to get these days is how your master branch is a different branch from someone else's master branch. So pulling from one master to another was a normal thing. When you clone you get a copy of all the branches. You can commit to your master branch all you want, it's yours to use however you want to.
Instead of excluding non-public directories, I like to make an explicit `public` directory (or `doc`, `doc-root`, whatever you want to call it). Then configure your server to point to that subdirectory and don’t worry about the repo.
I usually throw `etc` and `log` directories at the top level as well and out my server config in etc, and have a gitignite rule to ignore everything in logs, but it’s there and ready for painless deployment.
Since the web root is already a sub directory, more sensitive things can go into the same repo without worrying about exposing them.
A path traversal is different from putting private files in a public directory. For a simple static site there will always be certs, /etc, and other things outside of the document root that shouldn’t be served.
I expose the .git directories on my web server and never considered it a problem. I also expose them on GitHub and didn't consider that a problem either...
Super common failure is accidental commit of a secret key. People suck at actually deleting something from git history. Had one colleague leak a Digital Ocean key this way with an accidental env file commit. He reverted, but the key is of course still present in the project history.
The speed at which an accidentally committed and reverted key is compromised and used to say launch a fleet of stolen VPSes on a github public repo nowadays is incredible. Fortunately most of the time your provider will cancel the charges...
This has always been the roughest part of git for me, the process to remove accidentally committed sensitive content. Sure we should all strive not to commit stupid things in the first place, and of course we have tools like gitignore, but we are all only human.
"Sensitive data can be removed from the history of a repository if you can carefully coordinate with everyone who has cloned it and you are willing to manage the side effects."
As a git user "not by choice" (my preference going for mercurial every single day), I never understood why git needs this distinction between bare/non-bare (or commit vs staging for that matter). Seems like yet another leaky abstraction/bad design choice.
A repo is as database containing a tree of commits. Then you got the concept of branch, which points to a specific commit. Then there's the special pointer HEAD which is the latest commit for the current worktree.
When you checkout (now switch) a branch, HEAD is now the same as the branch (they point to the same commit). When you do operation like commit, reset, reset,... both the head and the branch are updated. So if a remote node tries to update the local node via a push on its end, that would mess up the local worktree. So you create a bare repo instead which can't contain a local worktree.
Note: A worktree is computed from the initial commit to the commit currently identified by HEAD by following the parent information on each commit.
The staging area is like a stored snapshot of what you would like to commit. You can always create patch between HEAD and the worktree, edit it, and then save the patch as the commit, then apply the leftover to the worktree. The staging just make that easier. It's a WIP patch for the next commit.
> When you checkout (now switch) a branch, HEAD is now the same as the branch (they point to the same commit).
Actually, HEAD now points to that branch, which in turn points to the commit. It's a different state than when HEAD points directly to the same commit (called "detached HEAD" in Git's terminology) where this issue doesn't happen as you're not on a branch at all. It's a subtle, but important distinction when trying to understand what happens under the hood there.
Mercurial has no distinction between a bare repo and a non-bare repo: any repo can have a working copy or not. You can check out a working copy with `hg update somerevision`, or get rid of it with `hg update null`.
You can push to a repo with a working copy, if you like; nothing will happen to that working copy unless you run `hg update`. Since you don’t need a working copy on the server’s repo, you never run `hg update` on it, and it’s effectively what git calls a bare repository.
So, exactly as DrinkyBird said: I still don't see a good reason for this distinction to exist, what's in the repo's history and in its working directory are orthogonal concepts that are tied together by a bad UX for no apparent gain.
Staging is immensely useful in more than one case.
Case one: WiP on a branch, code is pretty stable, but I want to do some experiments which will likely be deleted. I stage everything and then make (unstaged) changes which I can then undo with two keystrokes.
Case two: I'm reviewing a complex PR, so I first merge it with --no-commit, then unstage everything and then stage chunks (or even individual lines) I have already reviewed.
Case three: I was coding in the state of flow and now I have a lot of changes I want to commit, but I want to separate them into several atomic commits. I stage the first batch of changes, commit, then stage another, commit, etc.
There are probably more, but these three alone are worth having the staging area.
Case one: you don't need staging. You can stash, or just commit and checkout HEAD^
Case two: you don't need staging. You can stash, and then unstash incrementally (I would be shocked if git doesn't have the equivalent of `hg unshelve --interactive` and its keyboard friendly TUI)
Case three: you don't need staging. You can just edit/amend the series (rebase --interactive I believe you guys call that).
That is to say, all that you want to put in your stash, you could commit directly to the DAG, and edit to your convenience, with the regular history-rewriting tools already at your disposal. And the off-DAG stuff can be handled by stash (and even there, a normal commit that you would rebase to its destination would perfectly do).
And what I described is incidentally what https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj does, which can be pretty-well described as "taking the best of all major VCSes"
Though I wasn't trying to say that there is no need for staging-based workflows,
I was just saying that there is nothing in terms of convenience or capabilities that the staging area does that can't be achieved with just regular commits and amending/rewriting.
The immediate response from many git users when confronted to alternative VCSes is "well, it doesn't have a staging area, so it's obviously inferior" instead of going with "let's see how differently they approach this problem, and perhaps I will like it/git isn't all perfect after all".
> It’s also backed up by default: If the server breaks, I’ve still got the copy on my laptop, and if my laptop breaks, I can download everything from the server.
This is true, but I do also like having backups that are entirely decoupled from my own infrastructure. GitHub personal private accounts are free and I believe they store your data redundantly in more than one region.
I imagine there's a way to setup a hook on your own server such that any pushes are then pushed to a GitHub copy without you having to do anything else yourself.
> I imagine there's a way to setup a hook on your own server such that any pushes are then pushed to a GitHub copy without you having to do anything else yourself.
For most people, that would defeat the purpose of self-hosting.
(There's also the "to comply with our legal obligations" bit, which is a concern if you're doing things that governments around the world may have issue with.)
I expect there are people who like to self-host so that they're not dependent on GitHub up-time or having their accounts banned and losing access to their data. For them, having a secondary GitHub backup should still be useful.
> If your purpose for self-hosting is fear that GitHub will ignore their own promises in their terms of service and abuse their custody of your data then sure.
None of that protects against the U.S. laws or current political climate. There is no guarantee for EU citizen that GitHub processes data only in EU area or that data ever leaves it.
So it is all about the data privacy.
That's not accurate. I've had one of my own accounts blocked, with zero access until I talked to their support and convinced them I was, in fact, a real person.
At that moment, if I had any important private repos, they would be gone.
I suspect many who always use git remotely don't know that you can easily work with local repositories as well using the file protocol, git clone file:///path/to/repository will create a clone of the repository at the path.
I used that all the time when I had to move private repositories back and forth from work, without ssh access.
Git post-update hooks to do deployment FTW. I looked into the whole push-to-github to kick off CI and deployment; but someone mentioned the idea of pushing over ssh to a repo on your server and having a post-update hook do the deployment, and that turned out to be much simpler.
Self hosting Git isn’t just geek freedom, it’s a mindset of redundancy. I’ve had repos vanish due to platform bans that’s when it really hit me that “distributed” isn’t just a design, it’s a reminder of responsibility.
That's because git is hard to use and full of commands which are making no sense. Eventually people will learn to just clone, pull, push and occasionally merge and be done with it.
People said the same thing about “advanced” operations with cvs and svn (and just called their admin for p4 or source safe). But I really don’t understand the sentiment.
Managing code is one of the cornerstones of software engineering. It would be like refusing to learn how to use a screwdriver because someone really just wants to hammer things together.
The great thing about $your-favorite-scm is that it transcends language or framework choices and is fungible for early any project, even outside of software. I’m surprised it isn’t part of more professional tools.
> Managing code is one of the cornerstones of software engineering. It would be like refusing to learn how to use a screwdriver because someone really just wants to hammer things together.
Ok, then make the commands make sense. For example 90%+ people has no idea what rebase does, yet it is a useful command.
People does not want to learn with git outside of what works, because they can't experiment. The moment they will "hold it wrong" whole repo will break into pieces, unable to go forward or backwards. Hopefully they did not commit.
Git feels like a hammer covered in razor blades. The moment you will try to hold it differently you will cut yourself and somebody else will need to stich you up.
Most people would just use `app` `app (final)`, `app (final 2)`, etc... VCS exists for a reason and I strongly believe that the intersection of people that say git is hard and people that do not know why you want a VCS is nearly a perfect circle.
There was a brief period when Google Cloud had support for hosting git on a pay-per-use basis. (I think it was called Google Cloud Repositories.) It had a clunky but usable UI.
I really preferred the idea of just paying for what I used -- rather than being on a "freemium" model with GitHub.
But -- as many things with Google -- it was shutdown. Probably because most other people do prefer the freemium model.
I wonder if this kind of thing will come back in style someday, or if we are stuck with freemium/pro "tiers" for everything.
To my knowledge git-lfs is only really designed to store your large files on a central server. I think it also uses its own out-of-band (from the perspective of git) protocol and connection to talk to that server. So it doesn't work with a standard ssh remote, and breaks git's distributed nature.
For an actually distributed large file tracking system on top of git you could take a look at git-annex. It works with standard ssh remotes as long as git-annex is installed on the remote too (it provides its own git-annex-shell instead of git-shell), and has a bunch of additional awesome features.
Yes exactly, creating git user on Linux machine and configuring it just for git turned out to be easiest way how to get Source Tree and Git in Windows work with it out of the box.
(Use `git pull`? If the different people push to different branches, then there's no conflict and no problem. If you try to push different things into the same branch, the second person will get told their branch is out of date. They can either rebase or - if this is allowed by the repo config - force push over the previous changes...)
One note, xcode and maybe some other clients can't use http "dumb mode". Smart mode is not hard to set up, but it's a few lines of server config more than this hook.
TIL about the update options for checked out branch. In practise though usually you want just the .git "bare" folder on server
This is definitely nice but it doesn’t really support the full range of features of Git, because for example submodules cannot be local references. It’s really just easier to set up gitolite and use that in almost the same exact way but it’s much better.
If you think the bare bones example is interesting and want something simple just for you or a small group of people, this is one step up. There's no web interface. The admin is a git repository that stores ssh public keys and a config file that defines repo names with an ACL. When you push, it updates the authorization and inits new repositories that you name.
I put everything in repos at home and a have multiple systems (because of VMs) so this cleaned things up for me considerably.
can tangled support a forum-styled or subreddit-like thread discussion interface, on a per-repo basis so that "anyone could start a subreddit" via creating a discussion-only repo?
> public-inbox implements the sharing of an email inbox via git to complement or replace traditional mailing lists. Readers may read via NNTP, IMAP, POP3, Atom feeds or HTML archives.
We’ve considered this a lot. Our issues implementation is threaded—perhaps more Stack Overflow-like. We’re thinking of renaming it to Discussions, and having the actual issue tracker be collaborators-only.
I really like forgejo, but the git hosting bit is really just one feature for me. Their ci/cd runners, package repos and such are all things I need and forgejo includes in one nice bundle.
If I was just using it for git hosting I'd probably go for something more light weight to be honest.
A lot of people do host Forejo but unless you are actually working with other people and they need a reduction in access via pull requests it doesn't do much other than provide a pretty GUI to look at. The bare SSH approach makes more sense for personal projects.
Git is distributed, so there's no least power and all that. Everyone has full power over their own copy. What you want is one copy being the source of truth. You can always use HTTP for read-only access to that copy with a limited set of people having write access to update the copy. Patches can be shared via anything (git has built-in support for email).
The proper way to do this to make a "bare" clone on the server (a clone without a checked out branch). I was doing this in 2010 before I even signed up to GitHub.
What is it with code on blog posts where fonts have uneven size and/or font types (e.g. italics mixed in with regular)? I see this from time to time and I wonder if it’s intentional.
- a prod server ( and a test server) with a git repo.
- a local machine with the git repo.
- a git server where code officially lives, nowadays just a github.
If I were to simplify and run my own git server of the third kind, I would probably not run a server for the sole purpose of hosting code, it would most likely run on the prod/test server.
So essentially I would be eliminating one node and simplifying. I don't know, maybe there's merits to having an official place for code to be in. Even if just semantics.
I know you can also use branches to have a "master" branch with code and then have migrations just be merging from master into a prod branch, but then again, I could have just master branches, but if it's on the test server then it's the test branch.
I don't know if spendint time reinventing git workflows is a very efficient use of brain juice though.
I use non-bare git because it's just transferring code between multiple machines for cross-platform locally run software; that is, it's just checkouts on mac, Windows, and Linux and commits being pushed amongst them. But then I also use worktrees and stuff, so maybe I'm weird.
I do something similar. I create a bare repo on my dropbox folder or nas mount. Then checkout from bare repo file path to some place where I will be doing all the work.
Perhaps the only issue with this setup is that you lose some of the robustness of git: mess up one repo beoynd repair, and you've just messed up all the checkouts everywhere.
I sync my repos manually (using GitHub as the always-on remote, but I'm not particularly attached to it). This gives me more resilience should I blow up the repo completely (hard to do, I know).
this article is very bad advice. this way things are extremely brittle and there's a reason all those settings are disabled by default. you will lose data, save from very specific use cases
the vastly superior way is 'git bare' which is a first class supported command without hacky settings.
It's obvious as soon as you consider that your push will overwrite a ref that's currently checked out in the target's repo workdir. The exact same thing happens when pushing to local repos. You don't have to make a repo bare to avoid this issue, but it's certainly the easiest way to avoid it altogether when you don't need a workdir on the server side.
It's obvious that it needs to update the ref. It's not obvious that this would cause any problems. You could fix HEAD as part of writing the ref. Automatically managing HEAD is normal git behavior.
It's obvious that something non-obvious would have to happen with the workdir behind the user's back. Imagine that you are working with your workdir while someone else pushes something to your repo. Bailing out is the only sane option (unless something else has been explicitly requested by the user).
...except of all the things that rely on the HEAD pointing to another ref now changing their behavior. gbp will by default bail off if HEAD is not on a branch, "git commit" won't update the ref you thought it will cause you're now suddenly on "detached HEAD" etc.
I've never heard of... debian package builder? I don't care if it gets annoyed; if that's one of the biggest issues then that's a good sign for the method.
Yes the commit won't be on the branch you want, but you'd get about the same issue if the two repos had a bare upstream. The branch diverges and you need to merge. It's a bit less ergonomic here but could be improved. Git could use branch following improvements in general.
> Yes the commit won't be on the branch you want, but you'd get about the same issue if the two repos had a bare upstream.
Not at all. The commit would have "landed" on the exact branch you thought it will. How it will be reconciled with a diverged remote branch is completely orthogonal and may not even be of concern in some use cases at all.
The situation is almost identical except you don't have a cute name for your new commit. Let's say you add a ref to your detached commit, perhaps local/foo. Then you're looking at a divergence between foo and local/foo. If you had a bare upstream it would be a divergence between origin/foo and foo. No real difference. And if you don't want to reconcile then you don't have to.
If git was a tiny bit smarter it could remember you were working on "foo" even after the ref changes.
Of course it could, but that doesn't yet mean it should. A checked-out ref is considered to be in-use and not to be manipulated (unless done in tandem with HEAD), not just by "git push" but also other tools like "git branch". It's consistent and, IMO, less surprising than what you propose. It could be an optional behavior configured by receive.denyCurrentBranch, though I don't see a good use-case for it that isn't already handled by updateInstead.
If you use "git branch -d" you should expect the ref to be deleted, and yet:
> error: cannot delete branch 'main' used by worktree at '/tmp/git'
You could build the system differently and what seems like a sane default would be different there, but it would be a different system. In this system, HEAD isn't being manipulated by things not meant to manipulate it.
Yeah this is the best arguments for GitHub type of web git GUI. Not knowing bare repo seems just like a devs not reading docs. And I'm sorry in this day and age devs needs to keep up and just type git like curl http://...../install.sh type of thing.
However would NEVER trust Github since the MS acquisition. codeberg and https://forgejo.org are perfectly sound FOSS alternative to GitHub and GigLabs nowdays.
The vast majority of developers working with git daily don’t know what a bare repo is, or that it exists at all. It’s not obscure knowledge as such, it’s just never come up for them as something they need.
The vast majority [0] of developers working with git daily have no mental model of git repos and just do a mental equivalent of copy'n'pasting commands and it's enough to let them do their work (until something breaks at least), so it doesn't seem like a particularly good indicator of whether something is obscure or not. There are many obscure things hiding in git, bare repos aren't one of those :)
> I tried this and it is never as smooth as described.
I think your comment shows some confusion that it's either the result or cause of some negative experiences.
Starting with GitHub. The primary reason it "just works" is because GitHub, like any SaaS offering, is taking care of basic things like managing servers, authorization, access control, etc.
Obviously, if you have to setup your own ssh server, things won't be as streamlined as clicking a button.
But that's obviously not the point of this post.
The point is that the work you need to do to setup a Git server is way less than you might expect because you already have most of the things already set, and the ones that aren't are actually low-hanging fruit.
This should not come as a surprise. Git was designed as a distributed version control system. Being able to easily setup a stand-alone repository was a design goal. This blog post covers providing access through ssh, but you can also create repositories in any mount point of your file system, including in USB pens.
And, yes, "it just works".
> The official Git documentation for example has its own documentation that I failed to get work. (it is vastly different from what OP is suggesting)
I'm sorry, the inability to go through the how-to guide that you cited has nothing to do with Git. The guide only does three things: create a user account, setup ssh access to that account, and create a Git repository. If you fail to create a user account and setup ssh, your problems are not related to Git. If you created a user account and successfully setup ssh access, all that is missing is checking out the repo/adding a remote repo. If you struggle with this step, your issues are not related to Git.
The cool thing is that once you know how simple it is to self host (I certainly didn't know before, just used github), you learn a skill that you can apply to many different contexts, and understand better what actually goes on in systems you depend on. That's what these "tech should be invisible" people miss, where they tout that you should instead learn SASS solutions where you have zero ownership nor agency, instead of taking the time to learn transferable skills.
The knowledge is neither obscure nor tribal, it is public and accessible. And likely already on your system, in the form of man-pages shipped with your git binaries.
> The problem with software development is that not knowing such "tribal knowledge" is considered incompetence.
It is "incompetence," or at the very least, it is unwise.
At the very least, a huge part of the intent of Git's very design was decentralization; though as is the case with many good tools, people don't use them as they are designed.
Going further, simply because "deeply centralized Git" is very popular, does not AT ALL determine that "this is the better way to do things." Please don't frame it as if "popular equals ideal."
I understand where you're coming from, but this seems like a terrible defeatist attitude to have.
What are we supposed to do ... throw our hands up because GitHub won?
I'll be down voted, but I'll say it. If you hold that attitude and you don't learn the fundamentals, if you don't understand your tools, you're a bad developer and a poor craftsman. You're not someone I would hire or work with.
git is not "the fundamentals". It's a tool that's very difficult to learn but we are forced to use because "it won" at some point.
Git's difficulty is NOT intrinsic; it could be a much better tool if Torvalds were better at UX. In short, I don't blame people who don't want to "learn git". They shouldn't have to learn it anymore than one learns to use a browser or Google docs.
For normal users. Having this tribal knowledge is basically what makes developer and it’s their job to make technology invisible for others. Someone has to be behind the curtain.
> Why is GitHub popular? its not because people are "dumb" as others think.
> Its because GitHub "Just Works".
Git also "just works". GitHub simply offers a higher level of abstraction, a graphical UI, and some value-add features on top of Git. How much better all this really is arguable. I would say that it's disastrous that most developers rely on a centralized service to use a distributed version control system. Nevermind the fact that the service is the single largest repository of open source software, owned and controlled by a giant corporation which has historically been hostile to OSS.
GitHub "won" because it came around at the right time, had "Git" in its name—which has been a perpetual cause of confusion w.r.t. its relation with Git—, and boosted by the success of Git itself largely due to the cult of personality around Linus Torvalds. Not because Git was technically superior, or because GitHub "just works".
> You don't need obscure tribal knowledge
As others have said, a bare repository is certainly not "tribal knowledge". Not anymore than knowing how to use basic Git features.
> Like the adge goes, "Technology is best when it is invisible"
Eh, all technology is an abstraction layer built on top of other technology. Whether it's "invisible" or not depends on the user, and their comfort level. I would argue that all abstractions also make users "dumber" when it comes to using the layers they abstract. Which is why people who only rely on GitHub lose the ability, or never learn, to use Git properly.
I feel like something was lost along the way.
will give you a git repo without a working set (just the contents typically in the .git directory). This allows you to create things like `foo.git` instead of `foo/.git`.“origin” is also just the default name for the cloned remote. It could be called anything, and you can have as many remotes as you’d like. You can even namespace where you push back to the same remotes by changing fetch and push paths. At one company it was common to push back to `$user/$feature` to avoid polluting the root namespace with personal branches. It was also common to have `backup/$user` for pushing having a backup of an entire local repo.
I often add a hostname namespace when I’m working from multiple hosts and then push between them directly to another instead of going back to a central server.
For a small static site repo that has documents and server config, I have a remote like:
So I can push from my computer directly to that server, but those branches won’t overwrite the server’s branches. It acts like a reverse `git pull`, which can be useful for firewalls and other situations where my laptop wouldn’t be routable.It doesn't include pull requests, when cloning from github, though.
I've used this method to make a backup of our 80+ repo's at a previous company, just grab the url's from the api & run the git clone in a for loop. Works great!
> It doesn't include pull requests, when cloning from github, though.
Because GitHub pull requests are a proprietary, centralized, cloud-dependent reimplementation of `git request-pull`.
How the "free software" world slid head first into a proprietary cloud-based "open source" world still boils my blood. Congrats, Microsoft loves and owns it all, isn't that what what we always wanted?
When this kind of “sliding” happens it’s usually because the base implementation was missing functionality. Turns out CLI interfaces by themselves are (from a usability perspective) incomplete for the kind of collaboration git was designed to facilitate.
In another post discussion, someone suggested git as an alternative to overleaf, a Google Docs for latex... I guess there are plenty of people with blind spots for things that are technically possible, and usabel to experts, and UI that actually empowers much broader classes of users to wield the feature.
If you actually use the live collaboration features of overleaf, sure, it’s not a replacement. But lots of people use overleaf to write latex by themselves. The experience is just so much worse than developing locally and tracking changes with git.
Is the joke that overleaf has decent git integration?
Overleaf doesn't support branches, etc.
That's true, but at least it's possible to use via git. Great for working during a flight etc
> Turns out CLI interfaces by themselves are (from a usability perspective) incomplete for the kind of collaboration git was designed to facilitate.
git was designed to facilitate the collaboration scheme of the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which is, as you might guess... a mailing list.
Rather than a pull-request (which tries to repurpose git's branching infrastructure to support collaboration), the intended unit of in-the-large contribution / collaboration in git is supposed to be the patch.
The patch contribution workflow is entirely CLI-based... if you use a CLI mail client (like Linus Torvalds did at the time git was designed.)
The core "technology" of this is, on the contributor side:
1. "trailer" fields on commits (for things like `Fixes`, `Link`, `Reported-By`, etc)
2. `git format-patch`, with flags like `--cover-letter` (this is where the thing you'd think of as the "PR description" goes), `--reroll-count`, etc.
3. a codebase-specific script like Linux's `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl`, to parse out (from source-file-embedded headers) the set of people to notify explicitly about the patch — this is analogous to a PR's concept of "Assignees" + "Reviewers"
4. `git send-email`, feeding in the patch-series generated in step 2, and targeting the recipients list from step 3. (This sends out a separate email for each patch in the series, but in such a way that the messages get threaded to appear as a single conversation thread in modern email clients.)
And on the maintainer side:
5. `s ~/patches/patch-foo.mbox` (i.e. a command in a CLI email client like mutt(1), in the context of the patch-series thread, to save the thread to an .mbox file)
6. `git am -3 --scissors ~/patches/patch-foo.mbox` to split the patch-series mbox file back into individual patches, convert them back into an annotated commit-series, and build that into a topic branch for testing and merging.
Subsystem maintainers, meanwhile, didn't use patches to get topic branches "upstream" [= in Linus's git repo]. Linus just had the subsystem maintainers as git-remotes, and then, when nudged, fetched their integration branches, reviewed them, and merged them, with any communication about this occurring informally out-of-band. In other words, the patch flow was for low-trust collaboration, while direct fetch was for high-trust collaboration.
Interestingly, in the LKML context, `git request-pull` is simply a formalization of the high-trust collaboration workflow (specifically, the out-of-band "hey, fetch my branches and review them" nudge email). It's not used for contribution, only integration; and it doesn't really do anything you can't do with an email — its only real advantages are in keeping the history of those requests within the repo itself, and for forcing requests to be specified in terms of exact git refs to prevent any confusion.
I'm assuming a "patch" is a group of commits. So would a "patch series" be similar to GitLabs notion of dependent MRs?
There's basically 2 major schools of thought for submitting patches under git:
* Pile of commits - each individual commit doesn't matter as much as they all work combined. As a general rule, the only requirement for a valid patch is that the final version does what you say it does. Either the final result is squashed together entirely and then merged onto "master" (or whatever branch you've set up to be the "stable" one) or it's all piled together. Keeping the commit history one linear sequence of events is the single most important element here - if you submit a patch, you will not be updating the git hashes because it could force people to reclone your version of the code and that makes it complicated. This is pretty easy to mentally wrap your head around for a small project, but for larger projects quickly makes a lot of the organizatory tools git gives you filled with junk commits that you have to filter through. Most git forges encourage this PR system because it's again, newbie friendly.
* Patch series. Here, a patch isn't so much a series of commits you keep adding onto, but is instead a much smaller set of commits that you curate into its "most perfect form" - each individual commit has its own purpose and they don't/shouldn't bleed into each other. It's totally okay to change the contents of a patch series, because until it's merged, the history of the patch series is irrelevant as far as git is concerned. This is basically how the LKML (and other mailing list based) software development works, but it can be difficult to wrap your head around (+years of advice that "changing history" is the biggest sin you can do with git, so don't you dare!). It tends to work the best with larger projects, while being completely overkill for a smaller tool. Most forges usually offer poor support for patch series based development, unless the forge is completely aimed at doing it that way.
You normally have one patch per commit. The patch is the diff between that commit and its parent. (I forget how git format-patch handles the case where there are two parents.)
> (I forget how git format-patch handles the case where there are two parents.)
As per [0] merge commits are dropped:
Note that format-patch will omit merge commits from the output, even if they are part of the requested range. A simple "patch" does not include enough information for the receiving end to reproduce the same merge commit.
I originally thought it would use --first-parent (so just diff vs the first parent, which is what I would want) but apparently no! It is possible to get this behaviour using git log as detailed in this great write-up [1].
[0] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_caveats
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2285699/git-how-to-creat...
Thanks! I had no idea.
If that's the case I'm assuming the commit itself is quite large then? Or maybe it would more accurate to say it can be large if all the changes logically go together?
I'm thinking in terms of what I often see from people I work with, where a PR is normally made up of lots of small commits.
The idea is that you divide a large change into a series of small commits that each make sense in isolation, so that Linus or Greg Kroah-Hartman or whoever is looking at your proposed change can understand it as quickly as possible—hopefully in order to accept it, rather than to reject it.
Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks, I've always been curious about how the Linux kernel works.
I may not be the best source for information, not having written anything worth contributing myself.
Well I appreciate it none the less.
I think the point I always get stuck on is how small is "small" when we're talking about commits/patches. Like if you're adding a new feature (to anything, not necessarily the Linux Kernel), should the entire feature be a single commit or several smaller commits? I go back and forth on this all the time, and if you research you're gonna see a ton of different opinions. I've seen some people argue a commit should basically only be a couple lines of code changed, and others argue it should be the entire feature.
You commonly hear Linus talk about commits/patches having very detailed descriptions attached to them. I have trouble believing people would have time for that if each commit was only a few lines, and larger features were spread out over hundreds of commits.
When I'm reviewing commits, I find it useful to see refactoring, which doesn't change behavior, separated from functional changes, and for each commit to leave the tree in a working, testable state. This is also helpful for git bisect.
Often, a change to a new working state is necessarily bigger than a couple of lines, or one of the lines has to get removed later.
I don't want to have to say, "Hmm, I wonder if this will work at the end of the file?" and spend a long time figuring out that it won't, then see that the problem is fixed later in the patch series.
Other people may have other preferences.
wouldn't it be cool to have an open source (maybe even p2p/federated) version of GitHub?
Wasn't that how it worked before Microsoft bought Github?
They are available as refs on the remote to pull though, they just aren't listed so don't end up mirrored either.
They are listed tho. You can very much see them in info/refs.
My bad! I got misled by grandparent - they are in fact mirrored with "git clone --mirror" as well.
It still blows my mind how git has lost it's original ideas of decentralized development because of github and how github, a for-profit - centralized - close-sourced forge, became the center for lots of important open source projects. We need radicle, forgejo, gitea to catch up even more!
It didn't really lose the original ideas. It just never learned that people don't want to use it the way kernel devs want to use it. Git never provided an easy github-like experience, so GitHub took over. Turns out devs in general are not into the "setup completely independent public mailing lists for projects" idea.
> Turns out devs in general are not into the "setup completely independent public mailing lists for projects" idea.
My feeling is that devs in general are not into the "learning how to use tools" idea.
They don't want to learn the git basics, they don't want to learn the cmake basics, ...
I mean that as an observation more than a criticism. But to me, the fact that git was designed for those who want to learn powerful tools is a feature. Those who don't can use Microsoft. It all works in the end.
Fun fact: if I want to open source my code but not get contributions (or rather feature requests by people who probably won't ever contribute), I put my git repo on anything that is not GitHub. It feels like most professional devs don't know how to handle anything that is not on GitHub :-). Bonus point for SourceHut: if someone manages to send a proper patch on the mailing list, it usually means that they know what they are doing.
> My feeling is that devs in general are not into the "learning how to use tools" idea
Well, the devs learnt how to use Github, didn't they? Seems like people CAN learn things that are useful. I can also make the argument that Github pull requests are actually more powerful than git request-pull in addition to having a nicer UI/UX.
Being upset that people aren't using git request-pull is like the creator of Brainfuck being upset that scientists aren't using Brainfuck instead of something more powerful and has a better UI/UX like Python. It's kinda obvious which one is better to use...
> Seems like people CAN learn things that are useful
I didn't say they could not.
> My feeling is that devs in general are not into the "learning how to use tools" idea.
Given the number of vim, emacs, nix, git, i3, etc. users who are proud of it and all the customisations they do, I don't think so. Like, there will be a decent group, but not generalisable to "devs".
Git brings different things to different people.
For me the largest advantage of Git was being able to easily switch branches. Previously I'd have to have multiple copies of an entire source repo on my machine if I wanted to work on multiple things at the same time. Likewise a patch set going through CR meant an entire folder on my machine was frozen until I got feed back.
Not having to email complex patches was another huge plus. I was at Microsoft at the time and they had home made scripts (probably Perl or VBS, but I forget what) that applied patches to a repo.
It sucked.
Git branch alone was worth the cost of changing over.
Once they killed mercurial on bitbucket, it was over.
I once worked at a smaller company that didn't want to shell out for github and we just hosted repos on some VM and used the ssh method. It worked. I just found it to be kind of clunky having come from a bigger place that was doing enterprise source control management with Perforce of all things. Github as a product was fairly new back then, but everyone was trying to switch over to Git for resume reasons there. So then I go to this smaller place using git in the classic manner.
I don’t think it’s really that surprising. git didn’t become popular because it was decentralised, it just happened to be. So it stands to reason that part doesn’t get emphasised a ton.
It did become popular because it was decentralized, but the specific features that this enabled were less about not depending on a central server, and more about being able to work with the same repo locally with ease without having to be online for most operations (as was the case with Subversion etc). Git lets me have a complete local copy of the source with all the history, branches etc in it, so anything that doesn't require looking at the issues can be done offline if you did a sync recently.
The other big point was local branches. Before DVCS, the concept of a "local branch" was generally not a thing. But now you could suddenly create a branch for each separate issue and easily switch between them while isolating unrelated changes.
Having a web interface was really appreciated by users, it would seem.
>Having a web interface
It's not the interface, it's the web hosting. People want a free destination server that's up 24/7 to store their repository.
If it was only the web interface, people could locally install GitLab or Gitea to get a web browser UI. (Or use whatever modern IDE code editor to have a GUI instead of a CLI for git commands.) But doing that still doesn't solve what GitHub solves: a public server to host the files, issue tracking, etc.
Before git & Github, people put source code for public access on SourceForge and CodeProject. The reason was the same: a zero-cost way to share code with everybody.
GitHub and the others also handle user authentication and issue tracking, which aren’t part of Git itself.
It was both.
A 24/7 repository and a 24/7 web URL for the code. Those two features together let devs inspect and download code, and open and discuss issues.
The URL also let automated tools download and install packages.
Familiar UI, network effects made the rest.
Exactly. The UI needs to live wherever the canonical home for the project is, at least until we have a federated solution.
I'm really looking forward to federated forges.
No, actually it's the interface. Many companies would totally host it themselves, but the interface is what gives GH value.
GitLab is around a decade old, is a solid enterprise product and has always had a very similar interface to GitHub, at times even drawing criticism for being too similar. There's more to it than that.
GH is essentially an unlimited storage space. There are countless scripts which makes it possible to even use it as an unlimited mounted storage
And then one day orange gets pissed of at yet another country and it (the repo) is gone
orange ?
The convicted felon.
It is also other features such as GitHub workflow, releases, integration with other tools, webhooks etc. that makes it useful.
That’s true, but GitHub was dominant prior to having most of those features.
> “origin” is also just the default name for the cloned remote. It could be called anything, and you can have as many remotes as you’d like.
One remote can also hold more URLs! This is arguably more obscure (Eclipse's EGit doesn't even support it), but works wonders for my workflow, since I want to push to multiple mirrors at the same time.
Whenever I fork a repo I rename origin to “fork” and then add the parent repo as a remote named “upstream” so i can pull from that, rebase any of my own changes in to, and push to fork as needed.
Multiple remotes is also how you can combine multiple repos into one monorepo by just fetching and pulling from each one, maybe into different subdirectories to avoid path collisions.
This sounds like submodules, but I'm guessing it's completely orthogonal ... multiple distinct remotes for the same _repository_, all of them checked out to different sub-paths; does that result in all the remotes winding up with all the commits for all the shared repositories when you push, or can you "subset" the changes as well?
> “origin” is also just the default name for the cloned remote
I don't have a central dotfiles repo anymore (that I would always to forget to push to); I have SSH access to my devices - via tailscale - anyway so I'm doing
and can cd ~/.config && git fetch/pull/rebase $hostname anytime from anywhere.I've been considering a bare repo + setting $GITDIR (e.g via direnv) but somehow the dead simple simplicity has trumped the lack of push ability
I always thought it would have been better, and less confusing for newcomers, if GitHub had named the default remote “github”, instead of origin, in the examples.
If I clone my fork, I always add the upstream remote straight away. Origin and Upstream could each be github, ambiguous.
Is this something the remote can control? I figured it was on the local cloner to decide.
Can’t test it now but wonder if this is changed if it affects the remote name for fresh clones: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config#Documentation/git-config...
GitHub could not name it so, because it's not up to GitHub to choose.
There are places where it does choose, but arguably it makes sense for it to be consistent with what you get when using "git clone".
How is it less confusing when your fork is also on github?
Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/.
Nevertheless, to avoid ambiguity I usually name my personal forks on GitHub gh-<username>.
No, it's a normal feature of Git. If I want you to pull my changes, I need to host those changes somewhere that you can access. If you and I are both just using ssh access to our separate Apache servers, for example, I am going to have to push my changes to a fork on my server before you can pull them.
And of course in Git every clone is a fork.
AGit seems to be a new alternative where apparently you can push a new branch to someone else's repository that you don't normally have access to, but that's never guaranteed to be possible, and is certainly very idiosyncratic.
> in Git every clone is a fork
That's backwards. In Github every fork is just a git clone. Before GitHub commandeered the term "fork' was already in common use and it had a completely different meaning.
As I remember it, it was already in common use with exactly the same denotation; they just removed the derogatory connotation.
Arguably the OG workflow to submit your code is `git send-email`, and that also doesn't require an additional third clone on the same hosting platform as the target repository.
All those workflows are just as valid as the others, I was just pointing out that the way github does it is not the only way it can be done.
Yes, that's true. Or git format-patch.
> Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/.
Ah yes, I'm sure the remote being called "origin" is what confuses people when they have to push to a refspec with push options. That's so much more straightforward than a button "create pull request".
As far as I'm concerned the problem isn't that one is easier than the other. It's that in the github case it completely routes around the git client. With AGit+gitea or forgejo you can either click your "create pull request" button, or make a pull request right from the git client. One is necessarily going to require more information than the other to reach the destination...
It's like arguing that instead of having salad or fries on the menu with your entree they should only serve fries.
agreed, you'd need a second name anyway. and probably "origin" and "upstream" is nicer than "github" and "my-fork" because.. the convention seems like it should apply to all the other git hosts too: codeberg, sourcehut, tfs, etc
Huh. Everyone seems to use "origin" and "upstream". I've been using "origin" and "fork" the whole time.
I use "mine" for my fork.
Git was always explicitly a decentralized, "peer to peer" version control system, as opposed to centralized ones like SVN, with nothing in the protocol itself that makes a distinction between a "server" and a "client". Using it in a centralized fashion is just a workflow that you choose to use (or, realistically, one that somebody else chose for you). Any clone of a repository can be a remote to any other clone, and you can easily have a "git server" (ie. just another directory) in your local filesystem, which is a perfectly reasonable workflow in some cases.
This is a better summary than mine.
There was a thread not to long ago where people were conflating git with GitHub. Git is an incredible tool (after coming from SVN/CVS/p4/source safe) that stands on its own apart from hosting providers.
And GitHub naturally has done nothing to disabuse people of the interpretation that git = GitHub. Meanwhile, the actual raison d'etre for the existence of git of course doesn't use GitHub, or the "pull request" based workflow that GitHub invented and is also not anything intrinsic to git in any way.
I have a use case just for this. Sometimes my internet goes down while I'm working on my desktop computer. I'll put my work in a branch and push it to my laptop, then go to a coffee shop to continue my work.
When I do this I usually push to a bare repo on a USB pendrive.
I just copy files on a USB drive
It's a little more complex than that. Yes git can work in a peer-to-peer fashion, but the porcelain is definitely set up for a hub-and-spoke model, given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history.
There's other stuff too, like git submodules can't be configured to reference another branch on the local repository and then be cloned correctly, only another remote.
> given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history
When you clone you get the full remote history and all remote branches (by default). That’s painfully true when you have a repo with large binary blobs (and the reason git-lfs and others exist).
You're right, I got that part wrong, git actually fetches all of the remote commits (but not all of the refs, many things are missing, for instance notes).
But a clone of your clone is not going to work the same way, since remote branches are not cloned by default, either. So it'll only have partial history. This is what I was thinking about.
Notes aren't refs.
Yes they are, they get put in /refs/notes?
is the command you have to run to actually clone remote refs if you're making a working-copy clone?> given how cloning a remote repo only gives you a partial copy of the remote history
You may be thinking of the optional -depth switch, which allows you to create shallow clones that don't have the full history. If you don't include that, you'll get the full history when cloning.
You only get it actually full with "--mirror" switch, but for most use-cases what you get without it is already "full enough".
I'd say git submodules have such an awkward UX that should probably not be used except in very rare and organized cases. I've done it before but it has to be worth it.
But I get your larger point.
And they're often (not always) used where subtrees would fit better.
I can't get over my fear of subtrees after accidentally nuking one of my repos by doing a rebase across the subtree commit. I've found that using worktrees, with a script in the main branch to set up the worktrees, works pretty well to split history across multiple branches, like what you might want in a monorepo.
Sadly doing a monorepo this way with pnpm doesn't work, since pnpm doesn't enforce package version requirements inside of a pnpm workspace. And it doesn't record installed version information for linked packages either.
Yes, I encourage my co-workers, when pushing to a common repo, to use `$user/$whatever` exactly to have their own namespace. The main selling point I'm making is that it makes cleanup of old branches easier, and less conflict-prone.
Tangentially related: when you have multiple local checkouts, often `git worktree` is more convenient than having completely independent local repository. See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree
GitHub is full of git anti-patterns
I often init a bare repo on single-use server's I'm working on.
Then, have separate prod and staging clones parallel to that.
Have a post-commit hook set on the bare repo that automatically pushes updates to the staging repo for testing.
When ready, then pull the updates into prod.
Might sound strange, but for certain clients hosting situations, I've found it allows for faster iterations. ymmv
You probably want to use a bare repository (git init --bare) rather than `git config receive.denyCurrentBranch updateInstead`, which will cause your pushes to fail if you edit anything locally in the checkout. For http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/ I run a pull from the post-update hook of http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3.git, http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3.git/hooks/post-update, which is short enough that I'll just include it here:
You can of course also run a local site generator here as well, although for dev3 I took a lighter-weight approach — I just checked in the HEADER.html file that Apache FancyIndexing defaults to including above the file directory listing and tweaked some content-types in the .htaccess file.This could still fail to update the checkout if it has local changes, but only if they create a merge conflict, and it won't fail to update the bare repo, which is probably what your other checkouts are cloned from and therefore where they'll be pulling from.
Also bare repositories are a useful thing to put on USB pendrives.
For a USB drive, I would be more likely to use a bundle. Intended for offline distribution of a repository. Plus it is a single file, so you do not have to pay the transfer overhead of many small files.
You can repack your repo before you clone it onto the pendrive, and once it's there you can push and pull to it many times. Granted, pendrives are fast enough these days that copying an entire bundle every time is probably fine.
regarding that post-update script, can you explain?
I would think you'd want to
..in that order.And I wouldn't think you'd need to run git update-server-info again, after git pull. My understanding isthe update-server-info makes updates to info/refs , which is necessary _after a push_.
What am I missing?
The first update-server-info is running in the bare repo, which is the place I just pushed to, which is where sw/dev3 is going to pull from.
I'm not sure the second update-server-info is necessary.
If you're asking about the env -u, that's because Git sets that variable so that commands know which repo they're in even if you cd somewhere else, which is exactly what I don't want.
So my friend and I were trying to learn some coding together. We had our laptops on the same wifi and I wanted us to use git without depending on GitHub, but I was completely stumped as to how to actually connect us together. I don't want us to setup SSH servers on each other's laptops, giving each other full access to our computers, and sending patches to each other across the living room seems overkill when we're just sitting around hacking away on our keyboards wanting to share what we've come up with every few minutes or so. I still have no idea how I would solve this. Maybe I'd just try coding with a syncthing directory shared between us, but then that's totally giving up on git
Have you tried git daemon? https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-Git-Daemon
Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
I've been using git since 2007, this only dawned on me last year.
Git is especially prone to the sort of confusion where all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways so the culture is to just wing it until you're your own unique kind of wizard who can't tie his shoes because he favors sandals anyhow.
I like this comment. Over the years I've always found that whenever I see others using git, everyone uses it in different way and even for different purposes. This has left me really confused about what is the standard practice of Git exactly.
This is because people have different needs, Git is trying to cover too many things, there are multiple ways to achieve goals and therefore there is no standard practice. There is no single, standard way to cook chicken breast and that is a way simpler thing.
The solution is to set team/department standards inside companies or use whatever you need as a single contributor. I saw attempts to standardize across a company that is quite decentralized and it failed every time.
> there are multiple ways to achieve goals and therefore there is no standard practice
This is ultimately where, and why, github succeeded. It's not that it was free for open source. It's that it ironed out lots of kinks in a common group flow.
Git is a cultural miracle, and maybe it wouldn't have got its early traction if it had been overly prescriptive or proscriptive, but more focus on those workflows earlier on would have changed history.
The Pro Git book is available online for free
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2
This sort of thing is part of the problem. If it takes reading such a long manual to understand how to properly use Git, it's no wonder everyone's workflow is different.
I don't see it as a problem that everyone's workflow is different, and, separately, I don't see it as a problem that it takes reading such a long manual to understand all the possibilities of Git. There is no royal road to geometry. Pro Git is a lot shorter than the textbook I learned calculus from.
Unlike calculus, though, you can learn enough about Git to use it usefully in ten minutes. Maybe this sets people up for disappointment when they find out that afterwards their progress isn't that fast.
Agreed. Back when I first came across git in 2009 I had to re-read the porcelain manual 3 times before I really got it, but then the conceptual understanding has been useful ever since. I have often the guy explaining git to newbies on my team.
Agreed. I'd read the manual if there was something I needed from it, but everything is working fine. Yeah I might've rsynced between some local folders once or twice when I could've used git, maybe that was an inelegant approach, but the marginal cost of that blunder was... about as much time I've spent in this thread so whatever.
The nice thing about knowing more about git is that it unlocks another dimension in editing code. It’s a very powerful version of undo-redo, aka time travelling. Then you start to think in term of changes and patches.
Ane example of that is the suckless philosophy where extra features comes as patches and diff.
Do you know any construction folks?
With previous version-control systems, such as SVN and CVS, I found that pair programming helps a great deal with this problem. I started using Git after my last pair-programming gig, unfortunately, but I imagine it would help there too.
(I started using Git in 02009, with networking strictly over ssh and, for pulls, HTTP.)
> all the experts you know use it in slightly different ways
What? Knowing that a git repo is just a folder is nowhere near "expert" level. That's basic knowledge, just like knowing that the commits are nodes of a DAG. Sadly, most git users have no idea how the tool works. It's a strange situation, it'd be like if a majority of drivers didn't know how to change gears.
> It's a strange situation, it'd be like if a majority of drivers didn't know how to change gears.
If you literally can't change gears then your choices are a) go nowhere (neutral), b) burn out your clutch (higher gears), or c) burn out your engine (1st gear). All are bad things. Even having an expert come along to put you in the correct gear once, twice, or even ten times won't improve things.
If a programmer doesn't know that git is a folder or that the commits are nodes of a DAG, nothing bad will happen in the short term. And if they have a git expert who can get them unstuck say, five times total, they can probably make it to the end of their career without having to learn those two details of git.
In short-- bad analogy.
It's an analogy, there's no need to analyze it literally. And no, I've worked with some devs who don't understand git (thankfully I don't anymore) and it was quite a bit more than "five times" they got stuck or messed up the repo on the remote in an annoying way. Sure, if you regularly write code using a bunch of evals or gotos "nothing bad will happen" but it's a very suboptimal way of doing things.
The majority of drivers DON’T know how to change gears.
You are simultaneously saying that something is not expert level knowledge while acknowledging that most people don’t know it. Strange.
> The majority of drivers DON’T know how to change gears.
I'm not sure that's true, unless you only take certain parts of the world into consideration.
I think the idea is it shouldn't be expert level. It used to be in every tutorial. But you're right these days it may indeed be expert level knowledge
"Expert level knowledge" implies something more to me than simply few people knowing about it. It's ridiculous to say that knowing how to change gears makes you an expert driver, even if a minority know how to do it (such as in the US e.g.)
"Intimately understand the VM" is not the same as knowing what data structure you're using. It'd be comparable to not knowing the difference between an array and a linked list. Sure you may call it gatekeeping but likewise I may call your style willful ignorance of the basics of the tools you're using. Have you never used rebase or cherry-pick?
My point is only that the understanding is uneven. I'm ready to debate the merits of subtrees vs submodules but I didn't know the folder thing. Am I weird? Yes, but here is a place where weird is commonplace.
In the past I've blown coworkers minds during github outages when I just pulled code from a co-worker's machine and kept working
With remote, if your company stubbornly refuses to use a modern vpn like tailscale, and you can't really network between two computers easily, git format patch and git am, coupled with something like slack messages, works well enough, albeit moderately cumbersome
Yes. I've been subject to claims that a single person can't start a project unless and until an official, centralized repo is setup for them. I've responded with "git init is all that is necessary to get started", but they wouldn't hear it.
Depends, what's the reasoning? Because technically anyone can start a project even without Git. Or even without a computer. Someone can use a pen to write code on a paper.
Depends on what you mean by "a project". If it's policy related, maybe it's company's policy that all code that is written must be stored in a certain way for multitude of reasons.
They don't have a reason. There's no policy that keeps them from doing this. Sure, the whole point is to ultimately have the code in a common place where backups and code review can happen, but if it's a matter of starting something sooner because it takes a few days for the request to flow through to get things set up, they are not constrained by that AT ALL. They can create a git repo with git init immediately, start working, and once the repo is set up in the common area, git push all their work into it. Rather than train people on this, we spend time trying to hasten the common area repo setup time and put additional unneeded burden on the team responsible for that.
What are you using for the centralized repos? Why does it take multiple days in the first place?
It doesn't matter. They are centralized on servers that are ssh accessible, creating it is effectively mkdir and git init.
It's not about how long the action takes, it's about how much the team responsible for that is loaded and can prioritize things. Every team needs more round tuits. Anyone who works in an IT support role knows this. The point is that they can self-service immediately and there is no actual dependency to start writing code and using revision control, but people will trot out any excuse.
But why can't the teams themselves do it? All places I've seen or been to have had teams able to create their own repositories, either they use cloud Git providers like Bitbucket, Gitlab or Github, or they have self hosted Gitlab, Github etc.
Lots of places (unfortunately) restrict repo creation, or CI pipeline creation. The platform team might need to spin up the standard stack for your project, VON access added for AWS environments etc etc. In the sorts of orgs where this happens doing it properly is more important than getting started.
You are missing the whole point. The OP is mentioning how people are so used to using github, that they are so oblivion on using git offline
It just doesn't make sense to me unless it's a company policy type of thing.
Exactly, it doesn't make sense other than that folks don't actually know how to do even the most basic thing with git (git init).
Tons of people never even touch git cli, they use some gui frontend/IDE.
Tons of people who DO use git cli don't know git init. Their whole life was create a project on github and clone it. Anyway initting new project isn't the most "basic" thing with git, it is used less than .01% of total git commands
if you combine the above easily MOST people have no idea about git init
Not even "offline", just "using git".
You must work at Microsoft? A pound of paperwork for every new repo really shuts down experimental side projects. I showed my colleagues that we can share code via ssh or (painfully) one-drive anytime instead. They reacted like I was asking them to smoke crack behind the dumpsters. “That’s dangerous, gonna get in trouble, no way bro”
If you are working in a large corp and not your own side project, that honestly does sound like a bad idea.
Please, elaborate. I can share my screen with coworkers and talk about all sorts of confidential things, and I can even give them full remote access to control everything if I wished. So why would pushing a some plain text code directly to their machine be so fundamentally different than all the other means of passing bits between our machines?
If you share screen you are in control of what you show, if you give someone SSH access, what would stop them from passing/running a small script to fetch everything you have or doing w/e with your computer? I mean it's a blatant security violation to me. Just no reason to do that.
In large corps you usually have policies to not leave your laptop unattended logged in, in the office, that would be potentially even worse than that.
I wasn't aware that I could run a small script and fetch everything from every host with an ssh git repo. TIL.
I mean…git hooks are just scripts. If you can fetch, you can pull (or push) a script that executes locally.
It's not. Unless you work at a shitty place, something like what OP mentioned is far from a big deal and most people would wanna know more about it
The code is considered IP of the corp and they probably have rules around how or where IP should be shared, access controls etc.
There is nothing inherently special about code, than say, a confidential marketing deck or sales plan. If they can go a network drive, or a service like One Drive , why can't we put our code there? I'm not talking about the Xbox firmware or the entire Windows source. This is about little one-off projects, highly specialized tooling, or experimental proof-of-concepts that are blocked by bureaucracy.
It's a misguided policy that hurts morale and leaves a tremendous amount of productivity and value on the floor. And I suspect that many of the policies are in place simply because a number of the rule makers aren't aware of how easy it to share the code. Look how many in this thread alone weren't aware of inherent distributability of git repositories, and presumably they're developers. You really think some aging career dev ops that worked at Microsoft for 30 years is going to make sensical policies about some software that was shunned and forbidden only a decade ago?
OP is fully soaked with corp bullshit. A fellow sellout! Please read this: https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2025/10/15/pathe...
My way used to be in the past, put bare repos on Dropbox, clone the bare repo to a real path. Done.
That way, I
1. didn't have to worry about sync conflicts. Once complete, just push to origin 2. had my code backed up outside my computer
I can't exactly remember, if it saves space. I assumed it does, but not sure anymore. But I feel it was quite reliable.
I gave that way up with GitHub. But thinking of migrating to `Codeberg`
With `tailscale`, I feel we have so much options now, instead of putting our personal computer out on the Internet.
That doesn't work -- I've tried it.
I mean, it works fine for a few days or weeks, but then it gets corrupted. Doesn't matter if you use Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, whatever.
It's apparently something to do with the many hundreds of file operations git does in a basic operation, and somehow none of the sync implementations can quite handle it all 100.0000% correctly. I'm personally mystified as to why not, but can attest from personal experience (as many people can) that it will get corrupted. I've heard theories that somehow the file operations get applied out of order somewhere in the pipeline.
Among other reasons, the sync engines of these cloud stores all have "conflict detection" algorithms when multiple machines touch the same files, and while a bare repo avoids conflicts in the worktree by not having a worktree, there are still a lot of files that get touched in every git push: the refs, some of the pack files, etc.
When it is a file conflict the sync engines will often drop multiple copies with names like "file (1)" and "file (2)" and so forth. It's sometimes possible to surgically fix a git repo in that state by figuring out which files need to be "file" or "file (1)" or "file (2)" or whatever, but it is not fun.
In theory, a loose objects-only bare repo with `git gc` disabled is more append-only and might be useful in file sync engines like that, but in practice a loose-objects-only bare repo with no `git gc` is not a great experience and certainly not recommended. It's probably better to use something like `git bundle` files in a sync engine context to avoid conflicts. I wonder if anyone has built a useful automation for that.
With bare repos? I was bit by this a few years ago when work switched to "everything on OneDrive" and it seemed fine until one day it wasn't. Following that I did tests with Dropbox and iCloud to find that all could corrupt a regular repo very easily. In the past few months though I've been trying it again with bare repos on iCloud and not had an issue... yet.
I decided to try again just a couple of months ago on Google Drive for Desktop with a bare repo. Got corrupted on literally the third push.
Good luck with iCloud!
I've had a lot of success with using whatever. A lot of whatevers can quite handle many hundreds of file operations 100.0000% correctly.
Ha. I guess for me the other whatever is iCloud, but that corrupts too.
But have you ever found a cloud sync tool that doesn't eventually corrupt with git? I'm not aware of one existing, and I've looked.
Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about the occasional rsync, but rather an always-on tool that tries to sync changes as they happen.
I was thinking of my pendrive, but apparently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45714245 it also works on NFS.
Also relatively unknown: You can clone from a directory. It won't accomplish the backup feature but it's another option/feature.
If you do it over NFS or whatever then you can collaborate as well.
git over nfs ... not the very best idea.
I haven't tried it, but I think it's fine if only one person has write access to any given clone. You can pull back and forth between clones freely. It's if you have two Git clients trying to write to the same repo that you'll have problems.
I've put private working copies on NFS and CIFS. NFS worked pretty well (which probably speaks as much to the admins as the tech). Samba mounts on the other hand had all sorts of problems with time stamps that confused not only git, but the build system as well.
Shared write access to the same git repo directory can be done sanely, but you have to get a number of things right (same group for all users, everything group writable, sticky bit on directories, set config core.sharedRepository=group): https://stackoverflow.com/a/29646155
Yes, when you're not on NFS. Maybe it works on NFS but I wouldn't bet my project on it. Locking reliably on NFS is easy to get wrong, and it's a comparatively little-tested scenario now compared to 30 years ago. (You'll notice that the question doesn't even mention the possibility of NFS.) Fortunately at least with Git it's easy to have lots of backups.
For what it's worth they do call it out in the manual as a common thing to do: https://git-scm.com/book/ms/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protoco...
Granted I've never tried it so take it with a grain of salt.
That makes me a little less suspicious, and of course the Git developers are well aware of things like concurrency problems and filesystem limitations. But I'd still regard it as an area to be wary of. But only if two clients might be writing to the same repo concurrently.
I think if you're too young to know the earlier alternatives it's easy to overlook the distributed nature of git which made it different from them.
I read an article not long ago where students coming out of a web dev bootcamp were unable to make a hello world html file and open it in their browser.
We’ve gone so far with elaborate environments and sets to make it easy to learn more advanced things, that many people never learn the very basics. I see this as a real problem.
With cors this can be awkward now.
For a simple hello world HTML file, cors should not enter the equation.
Depends on what you mean by using etc.
If somebody asked me if it's possible to scp my git repo over to another box and use it there or vice versa, I would have said, yes, that is possible. Although I would've felt uneasy doing that.
If somebody asked me if git clone ssh:// ... would definitely work, I wouldn't have known out of the gate, although I would have thought it would be neat if it did and maybe it does. I may have thought that maybe there must be some sort of git server process running that would handle it, although it's plausible that it would be possible to just do a script that would handle it from the client side.
And finally, I would've never thought really to necessarily try it out like that, since I've always been using Github, Bitbucket, etc. I have thought of those as permanent, while any boxes I have could be temporary, so not a place where I'd want to store something as important to be under source control.
Am I misreading your comment?
You’ve always used GitHub but never known it could work over ssh? Isn’t it the default method of cloning when you’re signed in and working on your own repository…?
I have used SSH for GitHub of course, but the thought that I could also use it from any random machine to machine never occurred to me. And when it might occur to me, I would have thought that maybe SSH is used as a mechanism for authentication, but it might still require some further specialized server due to some unknown protocols of mine. I always thought of SSH or HTTPS as means of authentication and talking to the git server rather than the thing that processes cloning.
E.g. maybe the host would have to have something like apt install git-server installed there for it to work. Maybe it wouldn't be available by default.
I do know however that all info required for git in general is available in the directory itself.
Yes, SSH is used as a mechanism for authentication, and it still requires some further specialized server due to some protocols you don't know about. The server is git-upload-pack or git-receive-pack, depending on whether you're pulling or pushing. Your inference that a Linux distribution could conceivably put these in a separate package does seem reasonable, since for example git-gui is a separate package in Debian. I don't know of any distros that do in fact package Git that way, but they certainly could.
most people think git = github
IT support and cybersecurity teams responsible for blocking and enforcing network access restriction to "github.com" ... blocked a user request to install "git" locally citing the former policy. The organization in question does IT services, software development, and maintenance as their main business.
Sometimes I feel like IT and security people compete on how to make the work least possible.
These guys won.
That’s… special.
Yup. I’ve heard several people say that Git is a product from Microsoft…
I wouldn't mind it if those people are from non-tech background.
Now, if it is a growing misconception among cs students or anyone doing software development or operations, that's a cause for concern.
The irony, when you realize that Linus Torvalds created git.
There's an interview with Torvalds where he states that his daughter told him that in the computer lab at her college Linus is more known for Git than Linux
Clip from the interview: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0wLidyXzFk8
Looks like they’re not developers after all
Nonsense...
Even someone who knows that git isn't GitHub might not be aware that ssh is enough to use git remotely. That's actually the case for me! I'm a HUGE fan of git, I mildly dislike GitHub, and I never knew that ssh was enough to push to a remote repo. Like, how does it even work, I don't need a server? I suspect this is due to my poor understanding of ssh, not my poor understand of git.
Git is distributed, meaning every copy is isolated and does not depends on other's copy. Adding remotes to an instance is mostly giving a name to an URL(URI?) for the fetch, pull, push operation, which exchange commits. As Commits are immutable and forms a chain, it's easy to know when two nodes diverge and conflict resolution can take place.
From the git-fetch(1) manual page:
> Git supports ssh, git, http, and https protocols (in addition, ftp and ftps can be used for fetching, but this is inefficient and deprecated; do not use them).
You only need access to the other node repo information. There's no server. You can also use a simple path and store the other repo on drive.
Sort of related, but given that FTP is supported, I wonder how much work it would take to use telnet as a transport.
Doable. It would basically be ssh but without encryption. You'd have to bang out login by hand, but "username\npassword\n" will probably work, might need a sleep inbetween, and of course you'll have to detect successful login too. Oh, and every 0xff byte will have to be escaped with another 0xff
At that point, may as well support raw serial too.
Supporting rlogin on the other hand is probably as simple as GIT_SSH=rlogin
> There's no server.
There IS a server, it's the ssh daemon. That's the bit I had never thought about until now.
You can think of the ssh://server/folder as a normal /folder. ssh provides auth and encryption to a remote hosted folder but you can forget about it for the purpose of understanding the nature of git model.
The server is git itself, it contains two commands called git-receive-pack and git-upload-pack that it starts through ssh and communicate through stdin/out
SSH is just a transport to get access to the repo information. The particular implementation does not matter (I think). Its configuration is orthogonal to git.
It's just a transport, and it needs a server.
> I don't need a server?
You do, an SSH server needs to be running on the remote if you want to ssh into it, using your ssh client - the `ssh` command on your laptop. It's just not a http server is all.
You start that server using the `sshd` [systemd] service. On VPSs it's enabled by default.
Git supports both http and ssh as the "transport method". So, you can use either. Browsers OTOH only support http.
Exactly! Only now the dots connected. Thank you!!
Edit: hey this is really exciting. For a long time one of the reasons I've loved git (not GitHub) is the elegance of being a piece of software which is decentralized and actually works well. But I'd never actually used the decentralized aspect of it, I've always had a local repo and then defaulted to use GitHub, bitbucket or whatever instead, because I always thought I'd need to install some "git daemon" in order to achieve this and I couldn't be bothered. But now, this is so much more powerful. Linus Torvalds best programmer alive, change my mind.
And in general, any daemon that manipulates files can be replaced by ssh (or ftp) access and a local program.
And most things are files.
BTW, a nice example of this general concept is Emacs' TRAMP mode. This is a mode where you can open and manipulate files (and other things) on remote systems simply by typing a remote path in Emacs. Emacs will then simply run ssh/scp to expose or modify the contents of those files, and of course to run any required commands, such as deleting a file.
Did you know that you can use git locally? It works just like that because ssh is a remote shell.
Read https://git-scm.com/docs/git-init#Documentation/git-init.txt...
Anyway it sounds like you have a lot of holes in your git-knowledge and should read some man pages
No, you're wrong. These are holes in my ssh knowledge, and your comment makes me think you have the same holes.
lol you sound like a treat, dude
https://git-scm.com/book/ms/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protoco...
I mean, you do need an ssh server. Basically ssh can run commands on the remote machine. Most commonly the command would be a shell, but it can also be git commands.
Yup! Someone else just pointed it out. Brilliant, thank you!
I always found these sort of categorical denigrations to be off base. If most people do think git = github then that's because they were taught it by somebody. A lot of somebodies for "most people". Likely by the same somebodies who also come to places like this. It has always taken a village to raise a child and that is just as true for an infant as a junior programmer. But instead we live in a sad world of "why didn't schools teach person x"
Despite your indignation, the observation that most people think GitHub is git is entirely true. Do you point it out when you spot someone having that mistaken belief? I do.
What makes you say that people complain about the spread of incorrect knowledge "instead" of teaching? Because there's nothing wrong with doing both.
they were taught by github
Humans are fallible, relying on hearsay is unprofessional, learn your craft properly.
Imagine what the equivalent argumentation for a lawyer or nurse would be. Those rules ought to apply for engineers, too.
I don't think it has anything to do with being old, this is what happens when your software gets too complex that nobody even knows the very basics. This is highlighted with the documentation, if the software's documentation becomes lengthy enough that it could be an entire book, you're going to be getting these sorts of articles from time to time. Another highlight is bash, that is a huge man page for what should be a shell.
I didn’t know either - or rather, I had never stopped to consider what a server needs to do to expose a git repo.
But more importantly, I’m not sure why I would want to deploy something by pushing changes to the server. In my mental model the repo contains the SOT, and whatever’s running on the server is ephemeral, so I don’t want to mix those two things.
I guess it’s more comfortable than scp-ing individual files for a hotfix, but how does this beat pushing to the SOT, sshing into the server and pulling changes from there?
There's a lot of configuration possible due to the fact that git is decentralized. I have a copy on my computer which is where I do work. Another on a vps for backup. Then one on the app server which only tracks the `prod` branch. The latter is actually bare, but there's a worktree for the app itself. The worktree is updated via a post-receive hook and I deploy change via a simple `git push server prod`
You actually led me into a dive to learn what worktrees are, how bare repos + worktrees behave differently from a regular clone and how a repo behaves when it’s at the receiving end of a push, so thanks for that!
I’ve never worked with decentralized repos, patches and the like. I think it’s a good moment to grab a book and relearn git beyond shallow usage - and I suspect its interface is a bit too leaky to grok it without understanding the way it works under the hood.
Yep, me. I noticed that you sometimes use ssh:// URLs for GitHub, but I figured it was for authentication purposes only, and that once that step was over, some other thing came into play.
What are some fun/creative ways to do GitHub/GitLab style CI/CD with this method? Some kind of entry point script on push that determines what to do next? How could you decide some kind of variables like what the push was for?
Check the docs for the post-receive hook, it does give everything you need. I don't know what you have in mind by "GitHub/Gitlab style", but it's just a shell script, and you can add in as much yaml as you want to feel good about it.
I did a quick search for "post-receive hook ci" and found this one: https://gist.github.com/nonbeing/f3441c96d8577a734fa240039b7...
`man 5 githooks` is your friend. Hooks are just scripts and they can receive parameters. `post-receive` is most likely what you would want.
I wrote about that idea here: https://www.stchris.net/tiny-ci-system.html
I actually realized this last week, and have yet to try it. Programming for almost fifty years, using Git for thirteen years, and not an idiot (although there are those who would dispute this, including at times my spouse).
Filesystems and folders are foreign and elusive concepts to gen Z.
https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-direc...
I have encountered it in real life many times. These days I try to give jr's extra space to expose their gaps in things I previously assumed were baseline fundamentals - directories and files, tgz/zip files, etc
It gets better than that...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D1dv39-ekBM
A tip, you can put the hash in a regular youtube URL to get the full interface instead of the limited shorts one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1dv39-ekBM
Thanks. You can also replace /shorts/ with /watch/ and get the same result.
https://youtube.com/watch/D1dv39-ekBM
I never thought about it. If somebody had asked me, yeah. Of course it makes sense. But it's just one of those things where I haven't thought about possibility.
I imagine larger part of the developer community does not, in fact, know that GitHub is not git and one can get everything they need without feeding their code to Microsoft's AI empire. Just another "Embrace, extend, and extinguish"
Or just put the repo in a shared directory in a high-trust group of developers (or just yourself).
Considering git is one of those things barely anyone knows how to actually use, yes
My theory is that git is just so easy to use without understanding it that you end up with lots of people using it without understanding it :)
It's not "so easy to use without understanding it", it's the opposite it has so much unnecessary complexity (on top of a brilliant simple idea btw), that once people learn how to do what they need, they stop trying to learn any more from the pile of weirdness that is git.
Decades from now, git will be looked back at in a similar but worse version of the way SQL often is -- a terrible interface over a wonderful idea.
I don't think that's true. In my experience it takes time, but once it clicks, it clicks. Sure, there is a bunch of weirdness in there as well, but that starts way further than where your typical git user stops.
I don't think git would end up this popular if it didn't allow to be used in a basic way by just memorizing a few commands without having to understand its repository model (however simple) well.
I was aware that it should be possible to interact directly with another repository on another machine (or, heck, in another directory on the same machine), which implies that ssh access is sufficient, but I was unaware of how that would be done.
There's definitely generational loss about the capabilities of git. In the beginning, git was a new version control option for people to explore, now git is the thing you learn to collaborate on github/lab/ea. I remember the Chagon book coming out as the peak between dense technical explainers and paint by numbers how-tos.
I would be surprised if more than 10% of git users know that. Would be equally surprised if more than 20% of git users know how to use ssh.
I think your age isn't the issue, but I suspect you're in a bubble.
The non-Windows bubble?
Cannot emphasize this whole notion enough; Very roughly, Github is to git what gmail is to email.
It's mostly probably fine if that's the thing most of everybody wants to use and it works well; but also it's very unwise to forget that the point was NEVER to have a deeply centralized thing -- and that idea is BUILT into the very structure of all of it.
This reminded me of another discussion on HN a few months ago. Wherein I was reflecting on how the entire culture of internet standards has changed over time:
"In the 80s and 90s (and before), it was mainly academics working in the public interest, and hobbyist hackers. Think Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, IETF for web/internet standards, or Dave Winer with RSS. In the 00s onward, it was well-funded corporations and the engineers who worked for them. Think Google. So from the IETF, you have the email protocol standards, with the assumption everyone will run their own servers. But from Google, you get Gmail.
[The web] created a whole new mechanism for user comfort with proprietary fully-hosted software, e.g. Google Docs. This also sidelined many of the efforts to keep user-facing software open source. Such that even among the users who would be most receptive to a push for open protocols and open source software, you have strange compromises like GitHub: a platform that is built atop an open source piece of desktop software (git) and an open source storage format meant to be decentralized (git repo), but which is nonetheless 100% proprietary and centralized (e.g. GitHub.com repo hosting and GitHub Issues)." From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42760298
Yes. And honestly though, this is the sort of thing that makes me generally proclaim that Free Software and Open Source won.
It was extremely unlikely that it would be some kind of free utopia; but also, it's extremely remarkable what we've been able to keep generally free, or at least with a free-enough option.
I'd say GitHub is to git what Facebook is to email.
GitHub's value is in network effects and features like big and issue tracking.
At least Gmail is still an email client that communicates with other systems.
DNS is in the same predicament. :-p
Idk if git was designed to not be used in a centralized way. Like all other common CLIs, it was simply designed to work on your PC or server without caring who you are, and nothing stopped a corp from turning it into a product. Torvalds made git and Linux, then he put Linux on Github.
The reason Linus wrote Git was specifically because he was unwilling to accept the centralization of the existing popular source-control systems like CVS and SVN, and Linux's license to the unpopular proprietary decentralized source control system it was using got revoked because Larry McVoy threw a tantrum. Linus needed an open-source alternative, so he tried the unpopular open-source source-control systems like Monotone, but he felt they suffered from both featuritis and inadequate performance, so he wrote a "stupid content tracker" called Git.
It's not a "CLI" and yes, "decentralized" was literally one of the points of it.
"Distributed" was the point and the language their site uses*, not decentralized. It's only described as a convenience and reliability thing in contrast to the mess known as CVS. I haven't seen a note about avoiding one entity having too much power, even if that's a goal some users have in mind. Normally you have one master repo, or "blessed" as the site calls it.
It's like, a Redis cluster is distributed but not decentralized. The ssh protocol is not decentralized. XMPP, Matrix, and Bitcoin are decentralized protocols, first two via federation.
* https://git-scm.com/about/distributed
Git was explicitly designed to be decentralized.
Linux is not developed in GitHub.
I know it's only a mirror, but it looks like an approval
I never thought about this.. I've had the following problem in the past.
Host A, cannot reach official github.com. But Host B can and has a local copy of a repo cloned. So Host B can 'git clone ssh://' from Host A which is essentially equivalent, but just setting origin to Host B instead of github.com, sort of acting as a manual proxy?
What if Host A is natted, so Host B can ssh to Host A but not the reverse, can Host G ssh clone to Host A to push changes?
In the rare times I've needed this, I just 'rsync -av --delete' a repo from B->A.
You might want to read the documentation on "git remote". You can pull/fetch and push between repos quite arbitrarily, with plain ssh.
Git also respects your `~/.shh/config`, which lets you change settings per host. I've set up each of my GitHub accounts with a different "host" so it's easy to switch between them.
Just make the repository on the server side bare and you won't have to worry about checked out branches or renaming ".git" directory.
> This is a great way to [...] work on server-side files without laggy typing or manual copying
This is the usecase mentioned in the article and it wouldn't work with a bare repo. But if the server your SSH'ing to is just a central point to sync code across machines, then you're right: multiple hoops mentioned in the article are solved by having the central repo bare.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45713074 for a worked example of how it works with a bare repo.
yeah it seems odd that they don't just have remote> $HOME/repos/foo.git and then clone from there locally and remotely
FWIW a single user working on a remote versioned directory is indeed a reasonable use-case for receive.denyCurrentBranch=updateInstead, but IMO the article should have made it clear that it's not necessarily a good choice in general.
It's slightly more complicated to host your own git server on a generic linux box, because of file permissions.
I wrote a HOWTO a few weeks ago: http://mikhailian.mova.org/node/305
In interviews, I've literally asked senior devops engineers and senior software engineers if they have hosted their own git servers and how to initialise one and not a single one has mentioned git init --bare..... which is disconcerting. They can deploy appliances (like gitlab, gitea) and build pipelines just fine, but none of them realized how git actually works underneath and how simple it all is.
Why is that disconcerting? There's simply too much software to be familiar with obscure features like this
Because too many bad interviews are all about ensuring that the candidate knows the exact same 1% of CS/SWE knowledge as the interviewer.
Don't worry, karma dictates when the interviewer goes looking they'll get rejected for not knowing some similarly esoteric graph theory equation or the internal workings of a NIC card.
Too much of our interviewing is reading the interviewer's mind or already knowing the answer to a trick question.
The field is way too vast for anyone to even know a majority, and realistically it's extremely difficult to assess if someone is an expert in a different 1%.
Sometimes I feel like we need a system for just paying folks to see if they can do the job. Or an actually trusted credentialing system where folks can show what they've earned with badges and such.
A better interview question about this subject doesn't assume they have it memorized, but if they can find the answer in a short time with the internet or get paralyzed and give up. It's a very important skill to be able to recognize you are missing information and researching it on the Internet.
For example, one of my most talented engineers didn't really know that much about CS/SWE. However, he had some very talented buddies on a big discord server who could help him figure out anything. I kid you not, this kid with no degree and no experience other than making a small hobby video game would regularly tackle the most challenging projects we had. He'd just ask his buddies when he got stuck and they'd point him to the right blog posts and books. It was like he had a real life TRRPG Contacts stat. He was that hungry and smart enough to listen to his buddies, and then actually clever enough to learn on the job to figure it out. He got done more in a week than the next three engineers of his cohort combined (and this was before LLMs).
So maybe what we should test isn't data stored in the brain but ability to solve a problem given internet access.
In a sense it's anything but obscure, that is, it's one of the most basic of features of the tool and the first thing (well, git init anyway) anyone ever uses.
But that's why people don't know about it, because they skip past the basics because in practice you never use it or need to know about it.
This is the reality of software engineering and the like though - mostly you learn what you need to know, because learning everything is usually wasteful and never used, and there's a lot available.
(I haven't been able to read documentation or a software book end to end in 20 years)
I remember the first time I tried git, circa 2006, and the first 3 commands I tried were:
And it didn’t work. You have to ssh to the remote server and “git init” on a path first. How uncivilized.Bitkeeper and a few other contemporaries would let you just push to a remote path that doesn’t exist yet and it’d create it. Maybe git added this since then, but at the time it seemed like a huge omission to me.
So at first you didn't understand the commands or how git works. You needed a couple more steps to get things working. But apparently you just gave up and you're still complaining about it 20 years later.
Lol I have no idea why you came away with “… and I never used git again!” from all that.
I love git. It’s unironically one of my favorite pieces of software in the world. I’ve used it nearly every day for almost 20 years.
Maybe take a break from HN for a bit, I mean that sincerely.
Hah, you made me check whether clone's second argument can be a URL. But no, it's explicitly "<directory>", so it can't be used as a equivalent of "git push --mirror" :)
Some time ago, I was on a team of researchers collaborating with a hospital to build some ML models for them. I joined the project somewhat late. There was a big fuss over the fact that the hospital servers were not connected to the internet, so the researchers couldn't use GitHub, so they had been stalled for months. I told them that before GitHub there was `git`, and it is already on the servers... I "set up" a git system for them.
I have been doing this for many years.
If you want a public facing "read only" ui to public repositories you can use cgit (https://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/about/) to expose them. That will enable others to git clone without using ssh.
I keep my private repositories private and expose a few public ones using cgit.
I sent over a cgit web page for a take home assessment and the interviewer was horribly confused. I assume they have never seen anything apart from github before...
I imagine the interviewer was one of those senior developers that still thinks git == github.
Huh, I never realized that cgit was created by the same person that created wireguard.
The more I use git, the more I discover more depth to it.
So many features and concepts; it's easy to think you understand the basics, but you need to dig deep into it's origin and rationale to begin to grasp the way of thinking it is built around.
And the API surface area is much larger than one would think, like an iceberg
So I find it really weirdly low level in a way. Probably what is needed is is a higher-level CLI to use it in the most sensible, default way, because certainly the mental model most people use it with is inadequate.
My favorite git trick is using etckeeper & git subtree to manage multiple machines from a single repo . A single git repo can “fan out” to dozens of instances . It’s useful even for “managed” hosts with terraform because etckeeper snapshots config with every change, catching bugs in the terraform config.
During the dev / compile / test flow, git makes a lightweight CI that reduces the exposure to your primary repo . Just run `watch -n 60 make` on the target and push using `git push` . The target can run builds without having any access to your primary (GitHub) repo.
Care to share a little bit more about this? I've been thinking of using git with `--work-tree=/` to track system files, so I'm interested in these "unusual" setups with git. Not sure I got the "fan out" concept here.
Back when I started at my current job... 15 years ago... We had no central git server. No PR workflow. We just git pull-ed from each others machines. It worked better than you would expect.
We then went to using a central bare repo on a shared server, to hosted gitlab(? I think - it was Ruby and broke constantly) eventually landing on GitHub
This is classic git usage. A "pull request" was literally just asking someone to pull from your branch. GitHub co-opted the term for their own thing.
The thing that people really don't seem to get these days is how your master branch is a different branch from someone else's master branch. So pulling from one master to another was a normal thing. When you clone you get a copy of all the branches. You can commit to your master branch all you want, it's yours to use however you want to.
On GitHub, too, a "pull request" is literally just asking someone to pull from your branch.
Isn't it asking someone to pull your branch (if forked) then merge it into to master
Git pull is git fetch plus git merge.
Except your branch has to be on GitHub. The point is pulling used to happen across different repos a lot more.
Beware of using this to publish static sites: you can accidentally expose your .git directory to the public internet.
I got pwned this way before (by a pentester fortunately). I had to configure Apache to block the .git directory.
Instead of excluding non-public directories, I like to make an explicit `public` directory (or `doc`, `doc-root`, whatever you want to call it). Then configure your server to point to that subdirectory and don’t worry about the repo.
I usually throw `etc` and `log` directories at the top level as well and out my server config in etc, and have a gitignite rule to ignore everything in logs, but it’s there and ready for painless deployment.
Since the web root is already a sub directory, more sensitive things can go into the same repo without worrying about exposing them.
You can still get hit by a path traversal exploit. The safest option is to only have the public files on the server.
A path traversal is different from putting private files in a public directory. For a simple static site there will always be certs, /etc, and other things outside of the document root that shouldn’t be served.
Storing volatile data (e.g. logs) in the git-managed directory is an excellent way to lose all your data. https://fediverse.blog/~/Prismo/on-prismo-data-loss
I expose my .git directory to the public internet on purpose. If I don't, how will anyone else clone the repo?
But what, exactly, was pwned? Did you have secrets in the git repo?
No secrets like auth credentials or tokens but:
- Deleted files and development artifacts that were never meant to go public.
- My name and email address.
- Cringy commit messages.
I assumed these commits and their metadata would be private.
It was embarrassing. I was in high school, I was a noob.
I expose the .git directories on my web server and never considered it a problem. I also expose them on GitHub and didn't consider that a problem either...
Super common failure is accidental commit of a secret key. People suck at actually deleting something from git history. Had one colleague leak a Digital Ocean key this way with an accidental env file commit. He reverted, but the key is of course still present in the project history.
The speed at which an accidentally committed and reverted key is compromised and used to say launch a fleet of stolen VPSes on a github public repo nowadays is incredible. Fortunately most of the time your provider will cancel the charges...
This has always been the roughest part of git for me, the process to remove accidentally committed sensitive content. Sure we should all strive not to commit stupid things in the first place, and of course we have tools like gitignore, but we are all only human.
> https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-accou...
"Sensitive data can be removed from the history of a repository if you can carefully coordinate with everyone who has cloned it and you are willing to manage the side effects."
As a git user "not by choice" (my preference going for mercurial every single day), I never understood why git needs this distinction between bare/non-bare (or commit vs staging for that matter). Seems like yet another leaky abstraction/bad design choice.
A repo is as database containing a tree of commits. Then you got the concept of branch, which points to a specific commit. Then there's the special pointer HEAD which is the latest commit for the current worktree.
When you checkout (now switch) a branch, HEAD is now the same as the branch (they point to the same commit). When you do operation like commit, reset, reset,... both the head and the branch are updated. So if a remote node tries to update the local node via a push on its end, that would mess up the local worktree. So you create a bare repo instead which can't contain a local worktree.
Note: A worktree is computed from the initial commit to the commit currently identified by HEAD by following the parent information on each commit.
The staging area is like a stored snapshot of what you would like to commit. You can always create patch between HEAD and the worktree, edit it, and then save the patch as the commit, then apply the leftover to the worktree. The staging just make that easier. It's a WIP patch for the next commit.
> When you checkout (now switch) a branch, HEAD is now the same as the branch (they point to the same commit).
Actually, HEAD now points to that branch, which in turn points to the commit. It's a different state than when HEAD points directly to the same commit (called "detached HEAD" in Git's terminology) where this issue doesn't happen as you're not on a branch at all. It's a subtle, but important distinction when trying to understand what happens under the hood there.
You're right. I was trying to simplify.
Mercurial has no distinction between a bare repo and a non-bare repo: any repo can have a working copy or not. You can check out a working copy with `hg update somerevision`, or get rid of it with `hg update null`.
You can push to a repo with a working copy, if you like; nothing will happen to that working copy unless you run `hg update`. Since you don’t need a working copy on the server’s repo, you never run `hg update` on it, and it’s effectively what git calls a bare repository.
So, exactly as DrinkyBird said: I still don't see a good reason for this distinction to exist, what's in the repo's history and in its working directory are orthogonal concepts that are tied together by a bad UX for no apparent gain.
Jujutsu make the interaction sane, and is far more logical than even mercurial (that I love too!)
Yeah, I am in the same boat. My files are either non-staged or committed about 99.99% of the time. For me the concept of staging is completely useless
Staging is immensely useful in more than one case.
Case one: WiP on a branch, code is pretty stable, but I want to do some experiments which will likely be deleted. I stage everything and then make (unstaged) changes which I can then undo with two keystrokes.
Case two: I'm reviewing a complex PR, so I first merge it with --no-commit, then unstage everything and then stage chunks (or even individual lines) I have already reviewed.
Case three: I was coding in the state of flow and now I have a lot of changes I want to commit, but I want to separate them into several atomic commits. I stage the first batch of changes, commit, then stage another, commit, etc.
There are probably more, but these three alone are worth having the staging area.
Case one: you don't need staging. You can stash, or just commit and checkout HEAD^
Case two: you don't need staging. You can stash, and then unstash incrementally (I would be shocked if git doesn't have the equivalent of `hg unshelve --interactive` and its keyboard friendly TUI)
Case three: you don't need staging. You can just edit/amend the series (rebase --interactive I believe you guys call that).
That is to say, all that you want to put in your stash, you could commit directly to the DAG, and edit to your convenience, with the regular history-rewriting tools already at your disposal. And the off-DAG stuff can be handled by stash (and even there, a normal commit that you would rebase to its destination would perfectly do).
And what I described is incidentally what https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj does, which can be pretty-well described as "taking the best of all major VCSes"
Though I wasn't trying to say that there is no need for staging-based workflows, I was just saying that there is nothing in terms of convenience or capabilities that the staging area does that can't be achieved with just regular commits and amending/rewriting.
The immediate response from many git users when confronted to alternative VCSes is "well, it doesn't have a staging area, so it's obviously inferior" instead of going with "let's see how differently they approach this problem, and perhaps I will like it/git isn't all perfect after all".
> It’s also backed up by default: If the server breaks, I’ve still got the copy on my laptop, and if my laptop breaks, I can download everything from the server.
This is true, but I do also like having backups that are entirely decoupled from my own infrastructure. GitHub personal private accounts are free and I believe they store your data redundantly in more than one region.
I imagine there's a way to setup a hook on your own server such that any pushes are then pushed to a GitHub copy without you having to do anything else yourself.
> I imagine there's a way to setup a hook on your own server such that any pushes are then pushed to a GitHub copy without you having to do anything else yourself.
For most people, that would defeat the purpose of self-hosting.
If your purpose for self-hosting is fear that GitHub will ignore their own promises in their terms of service and abuse their custody of your data then sure. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
(There's also the "to comply with our legal obligations" bit, which is a concern if you're doing things that governments around the world may have issue with.)
I expect there are people who like to self-host so that they're not dependent on GitHub up-time or having their accounts banned and losing access to their data. For them, having a secondary GitHub backup should still be useful.
> If your purpose for self-hosting is fear that GitHub will ignore their own promises in their terms of service and abuse their custody of your data then sure.
None of that protects against the U.S. laws or current political climate. There is no guarantee for EU citizen that GitHub processes data only in EU area or that data ever leaves it. So it is all about the data privacy.
That's not accurate. I've had one of my own accounts blocked, with zero access until I talked to their support and convinced them I was, in fact, a real person.
At that moment, if I had any important private repos, they would be gone.
That's no reason not to use them as a third offsite backup on top of your laptop and your own server hosting, which is what I'm suggesting here.
[delayed]
I suspect many who always use git remotely don't know that you can easily work with local repositories as well using the file protocol, git clone file:///path/to/repository will create a clone of the repository at the path.
I used that all the time when I had to move private repositories back and forth from work, without ssh access.
you don't need to specify the protocol.
For file protocol, just type a path.
For ssh, type a ssh connection string like lion@myserver.test:path/to/file
Git post-update hooks to do deployment FTW. I looked into the whole push-to-github to kick off CI and deployment; but someone mentioned the idea of pushing over ssh to a repo on your server and having a post-update hook do the deployment, and that turned out to be much simpler.
Self hosting Git isn’t just geek freedom, it’s a mindset of redundancy. I’ve had repos vanish due to platform bans that’s when it really hit me that “distributed” isn’t just a design, it’s a reminder of responsibility.
git push prod
Until you have more users than dollars that's all you need.
I do this for blog posts, but for server side work I just rsync my dir, much easier
I am surprised how little software engineers (even those that use) know about git.
That's because git is hard to use and full of commands which are making no sense. Eventually people will learn to just clone, pull, push and occasionally merge and be done with it.
People said the same thing about “advanced” operations with cvs and svn (and just called their admin for p4 or source safe). But I really don’t understand the sentiment.
Managing code is one of the cornerstones of software engineering. It would be like refusing to learn how to use a screwdriver because someone really just wants to hammer things together.
The great thing about $your-favorite-scm is that it transcends language or framework choices and is fungible for early any project, even outside of software. I’m surprised it isn’t part of more professional tools.
> Managing code is one of the cornerstones of software engineering. It would be like refusing to learn how to use a screwdriver because someone really just wants to hammer things together.
Ok, then make the commands make sense. For example 90%+ people has no idea what rebase does, yet it is a useful command.
People does not want to learn with git outside of what works, because they can't experiment. The moment they will "hold it wrong" whole repo will break into pieces, unable to go forward or backwards. Hopefully they did not commit.
Git feels like a hammer covered in razor blades. The moment you will try to hold it differently you will cut yourself and somebody else will need to stich you up.
You can definitely experiment. Make a copy of the directory and experiment on that copy without pushing. I have done it a million times.
Most people would just use `app` `app (final)`, `app (final 2)`, etc... VCS exists for a reason and I strongly believe that the intersection of people that say git is hard and people that do not know why you want a VCS is nearly a perfect circle.
Being a useful tool does not justify having an extremely inconsistent and unnecessarily confusing UI.
You can do it with just directories too.
There was a brief period when Google Cloud had support for hosting git on a pay-per-use basis. (I think it was called Google Cloud Repositories.) It had a clunky but usable UI.
I really preferred the idea of just paying for what I used -- rather than being on a "freemium" model with GitHub.
But -- as many things with Google -- it was shutdown. Probably because most other people do prefer the freemium model.
I wonder if this kind of thing will come back in style someday, or if we are stuck with freemium/pro "tiers" for everything.
This is, in fact, what git was made for
I've used Git over SSH for several years for personal projects. It just works with no additional overhead or maintenance.
Tip: create a `git` user on the server and set its shell to `git-shell`. E.g.:
You might also want to restrict its directory and command access in the sshd config for extra security.Then, when you need to create a new repository you run:
And use it like so: Or: This has the exact same UX as any code forge.I think that initializing a bare repository avoids the workarounds for pushing to a currently checked out branch.
Yes, that's how I use it too.
However, this setup doesn't work with git-lfs (large file support). Or, at least I haven't been able to get it working.
PS: Even though git-shell is very restricted you can still put shell commands in ~/git-shell-commands
To my knowledge git-lfs is only really designed to store your large files on a central server. I think it also uses its own out-of-band (from the perspective of git) protocol and connection to talk to that server. So it doesn't work with a standard ssh remote, and breaks git's distributed nature.
For an actually distributed large file tracking system on top of git you could take a look at git-annex. It works with standard ssh remotes as long as git-annex is installed on the remote too (it provides its own git-annex-shell instead of git-shell), and has a bunch of additional awesome features.
Yes exactly, creating git user on Linux machine and configuring it just for git turned out to be easiest way how to get Source Tree and Git in Windows work with it out of the box.
How would I sync access, if more than one people ssh-pushes onto the git repo? I assume syncing be necessary.
Same as always, with any other remote?
(Use `git pull`? If the different people push to different branches, then there's no conflict and no problem. If you try to push different things into the same branch, the second person will get told their branch is out of date. They can either rebase or - if this is allowed by the repo config - force push over the previous changes...)
Sure, if they push one after the other. If they push at the same time however, does Git handle the sync on its own?
yeah
nice, thx
One note, xcode and maybe some other clients can't use http "dumb mode". Smart mode is not hard to set up, but it's a few lines of server config more than this hook.
TIL about the update options for checked out branch. In practise though usually you want just the .git "bare" folder on server
I feel like this is a bug that Xcode should fix
There are many bugs Xcode should fix.
This is the first time I've heard of a Git client that's too broken to use HTTP dumb mode.
Docs:
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-clone#_git_urls
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-init
This is definitely nice but it doesn’t really support the full range of features of Git, because for example submodules cannot be local references. It’s really just easier to set up gitolite and use that in almost the same exact way but it’s much better.
This is how Heroku has been doing it for years since it started out 10+ years ago.
$ git push heroku master
So you'll have to make sure to push to e.g. GitHub as well for version control.
Huh, y'know I shouldn't be surprised that this is possible given what I know about ssh and git. Yet I am.
Yup. I do something similar: HTTPS://BI6.US/GI/B
Interesting. I am just trying to decide between self-hosting Forgejo and other options for hosting Git in own private network.
One of my favorite tools available for Linux is called gitolite. It's in the Debian repo.
https://gitolite.com/gitolite/
If you think the bare bones example is interesting and want something simple just for you or a small group of people, this is one step up. There's no web interface. The admin is a git repository that stores ssh public keys and a config file that defines repo names with an ACL. When you push, it updates the authorization and inits new repositories that you name.
I put everything in repos at home and a have multiple systems (because of VMs) so this cleaned things up for me considerably.
gitolite is great. It's simple and extremely lightweight.
Could also consider running a Tangled knot (lightweight, headless git servers): https://tangled.org
Does this support private repositories with collaboration?
Not yet, unfortunately. Mostly due to protocol limitations—we use AT (https://atproto.com) for federation.
can tangled support a forum-styled or subreddit-like thread discussion interface, on a per-repo basis so that "anyone could start a subreddit" via creating a discussion-only repo?
Wondering if something like this could be implemented on tangled with public-inbox:
https://public-inbox.org/README.html
> public-inbox implements the sharing of an email inbox via git to complement or replace traditional mailing lists. Readers may read via NNTP, IMAP, POP3, Atom feeds or HTML archives.
> public-inbox stores mail in git repositories as documented in https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox-v2-format.txt and https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox-v1-format.txt
> By storing (and optionally) exposing an inbox via git, it is fast and efficient to host and mirror public-inboxes.
We’ve considered this a lot. Our issues implementation is threaded—perhaps more Stack Overflow-like. We’re thinking of renaming it to Discussions, and having the actual issue tracker be collaborators-only.
That looks definitely interesting!
I really like forgejo, but the git hosting bit is really just one feature for me. Their ci/cd runners, package repos and such are all things I need and forgejo includes in one nice bundle.
If I was just using it for git hosting I'd probably go for something more light weight to be honest.
A lot of people do host Forejo but unless you are actually working with other people and they need a reduction in access via pull requests it doesn't do much other than provide a pretty GUI to look at. The bare SSH approach makes more sense for personal projects.
am using gitea. but thinking of switching to serve (charm).
I'm also using gitea, running on RPI5. Setup took like 15 mins, highly recommend.
mine is running on an rpi zero w (v1). super low power consumption.
Forgejo is working okay for me.
Hard to justify using SSH for Git. Principle of least power and all that
Git is distributed, so there's no least power and all that. Everyone has full power over their own copy. What you want is one copy being the source of truth. You can always use HTTP for read-only access to that copy with a limited set of people having write access to update the copy. Patches can be shared via anything (git has built-in support for email).
I wonder what's the missing link between this manual setup and something like gitea. Is gitea just automation of this?
The proper way to do this to make a "bare" clone on the server (a clone without a checked out branch). I was doing this in 2010 before I even signed up to GitHub.
you don't even need ssh, you can also just store the remote on a local or remote file system
What is it with code on blog posts where fonts have uneven size and/or font types (e.g. italics mixed in with regular)? I see this from time to time and I wonder if it’s intentional.
Found a solution to this recently (this is not my blog): https://nathan.rs/posts/fixing-ios-codeblocks/
CSS needs some tweaking for iOS Safari, I guess.
Seen this a lot as well with Safari on the iPhone.
You could just put a bare repo on a usb drive and pass it around but I wouldn’t recommend it.
There’s also git daemon.
Hmm. I typically have:
- a prod server ( and a test server) with a git repo.
- a local machine with the git repo.
- a git server where code officially lives, nowadays just a github.
If I were to simplify and run my own git server of the third kind, I would probably not run a server for the sole purpose of hosting code, it would most likely run on the prod/test server.
So essentially I would be eliminating one node and simplifying. I don't know, maybe there's merits to having an official place for code to be in. Even if just semantics.
I know you can also use branches to have a "master" branch with code and then have migrations just be merging from master into a prod branch, but then again, I could have just master branches, but if it's on the test server then it's the test branch.
I don't know if spendint time reinventing git workflows is a very efficient use of brain juice though.
“By default, git won’t let you push to the branch that is currently checked out”
TIL that people use non-bare git.
I use non-bare git because it's just transferring code between multiple machines for cross-platform locally run software; that is, it's just checkouts on mac, Windows, and Linux and commits being pushed amongst them. But then I also use worktrees and stuff, so maybe I'm weird.
I do something similar. I create a bare repo on my dropbox folder or nas mount. Then checkout from bare repo file path to some place where I will be doing all the work.
My git "server" is a folder of bare git repositories in home directory which I share with Syncthing.
It'd be great if there was more specific support. But in practice? No problems so far.
Perhaps the only issue with this setup is that you lose some of the robustness of git: mess up one repo beoynd repair, and you've just messed up all the checkouts everywhere.
I sync my repos manually (using GitHub as the always-on remote, but I'm not particularly attached to it). This gives me more resilience should I blow up the repo completely (hard to do, I know).
They're not checked out repos. They're bare repos, which I then checkout from.
The benefit is that git repos are essentially append only in this mode.
The folder itself is scheduled into an encrypted backblaze backup too.
Ok, fair!
this article is very bad advice. this way things are extremely brittle and there's a reason all those settings are disabled by default. you will lose data, save from very specific use cases
the vastly superior way is 'git bare' which is a first class supported command without hacky settings.
I tried this and it is never as smooth as described.
Why is GitHub popular? its not because people are "dumb" as others think.
Its because GitHub "Just Works".
You don't need obscure tribal knowledge like seba_dos1 suggests [0] or this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45711294
The official Git documentation for example has its own documentation that I failed to get work. (it is vastly different from what OP is suggesting)
The problem with software development is that not knowing such "tribal knowledge" is considered incompetence.
People don't need to deal with obscure error messages which is why they choose GitHub & why Github won.
Like the adge goes, "Technology is best when it is invisible"
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45711236
[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-Setting-Up-...
Are basic git concepts like bare repos "obscure tribal knowledge" these days? What do you think ".git" directory is?
Having to make a repo bare to not have issues with branches is definitely obscure.
It's obvious as soon as you consider that your push will overwrite a ref that's currently checked out in the target's repo workdir. The exact same thing happens when pushing to local repos. You don't have to make a repo bare to avoid this issue, but it's certainly the easiest way to avoid it altogether when you don't need a workdir on the server side.
It's obvious that it needs to update the ref. It's not obvious that this would cause any problems. You could fix HEAD as part of writing the ref. Automatically managing HEAD is normal git behavior.
It's obvious that something non-obvious would have to happen with the workdir behind the user's back. Imagine that you are working with your workdir while someone else pushes something to your repo. Bailing out is the only sane option (unless something else has been explicitly requested by the user).
Nothing has to happen to the workdir if you fix HEAD.
...except of all the things that rely on the HEAD pointing to another ref now changing their behavior. gbp will by default bail off if HEAD is not on a branch, "git commit" won't update the ref you thought it will cause you're now suddenly on "detached HEAD" etc.
I've never heard of... debian package builder? I don't care if it gets annoyed; if that's one of the biggest issues then that's a good sign for the method.
Yes the commit won't be on the branch you want, but you'd get about the same issue if the two repos had a bare upstream. The branch diverges and you need to merge. It's a bit less ergonomic here but could be improved. Git could use branch following improvements in general.
> Yes the commit won't be on the branch you want, but you'd get about the same issue if the two repos had a bare upstream.
Not at all. The commit would have "landed" on the exact branch you thought it will. How it will be reconciled with a diverged remote branch is completely orthogonal and may not even be of concern in some use cases at all.
The situation is almost identical except you don't have a cute name for your new commit. Let's say you add a ref to your detached commit, perhaps local/foo. Then you're looking at a divergence between foo and local/foo. If you had a bare upstream it would be a divergence between origin/foo and foo. No real difference. And if you don't want to reconcile then you don't have to.
If git was a tiny bit smarter it could remember you were working on "foo" even after the ref changes.
Of course it could, but that doesn't yet mean it should. A checked-out ref is considered to be in-use and not to be manipulated (unless done in tandem with HEAD), not just by "git push" but also other tools like "git branch". It's consistent and, IMO, less surprising than what you propose. It could be an optional behavior configured by receive.denyCurrentBranch, though I don't see a good use-case for it that isn't already handled by updateInstead.
If someone pushes to a repo you should expect the refs to change. In some sense doing nothing avoids surprise but it's a bad way to avoid surprise.
But my real point is that refusing to act is not "the only sane [default] option" here. Mild ergonomic issues aren't a disqualifier.
If you use "git branch -d" you should expect the ref to be deleted, and yet:
> error: cannot delete branch 'main' used by worktree at '/tmp/git'
You could build the system differently and what seems like a sane default would be different there, but it would be a different system. In this system, HEAD isn't being manipulated by things not meant to manipulate it.
It wasn't obscure before GitHub.
Still, I like the online browser, and pr workflow.
Yeah this is the best arguments for GitHub type of web git GUI. Not knowing bare repo seems just like a devs not reading docs. And I'm sorry in this day and age devs needs to keep up and just type git like curl http://...../install.sh type of thing.
However would NEVER trust Github since the MS acquisition. codeberg and https://forgejo.org are perfectly sound FOSS alternative to GitHub and GigLabs nowdays.
The vast majority of developers working with git daily don’t know what a bare repo is, or that it exists at all. It’s not obscure knowledge as such, it’s just never come up for them as something they need.
The vast majority [0] of developers working with git daily have no mental model of git repos and just do a mental equivalent of copy'n'pasting commands and it's enough to let them do their work (until something breaks at least), so it doesn't seem like a particularly good indicator of whether something is obscure or not. There are many obscure things hiding in git, bare repos aren't one of those :)
[0] Source: pulled out of my arse.
Now try to add a submodule X (which is a bare repository) to your repository Y
Good job, now you can't add it nor remove it, without manually removing it in .git folder.
> I tried this and it is never as smooth as described.
I think your comment shows some confusion that it's either the result or cause of some negative experiences.
Starting with GitHub. The primary reason it "just works" is because GitHub, like any SaaS offering, is taking care of basic things like managing servers, authorization, access control, etc.
Obviously, if you have to setup your own ssh server, things won't be as streamlined as clicking a button.
But that's obviously not the point of this post.
The point is that the work you need to do to setup a Git server is way less than you might expect because you already have most of the things already set, and the ones that aren't are actually low-hanging fruit.
This should not come as a surprise. Git was designed as a distributed version control system. Being able to easily setup a stand-alone repository was a design goal. This blog post covers providing access through ssh, but you can also create repositories in any mount point of your file system, including in USB pens.
And, yes, "it just works".
> The official Git documentation for example has its own documentation that I failed to get work. (it is vastly different from what OP is suggesting)
I'm sorry, the inability to go through the how-to guide that you cited has nothing to do with Git. The guide only does three things: create a user account, setup ssh access to that account, and create a Git repository. If you fail to create a user account and setup ssh, your problems are not related to Git. If you created a user account and successfully setup ssh access, all that is missing is checking out the repo/adding a remote repo. If you struggle with this step, your issues are not related to Git.
The cool thing is that once you know how simple it is to self host (I certainly didn't know before, just used github), you learn a skill that you can apply to many different contexts, and understand better what actually goes on in systems you depend on. That's what these "tech should be invisible" people miss, where they tout that you should instead learn SASS solutions where you have zero ownership nor agency, instead of taking the time to learn transferable skills.
> obscure tribal knowledge
The knowledge is neither obscure nor tribal, it is public and accessible. And likely already on your system, in the form of man-pages shipped with your git binaries.
> The problem with software development is that not knowing such "tribal knowledge" is considered incompetence.
Consequently.
> Its because GitHub "Just Works".
IPv6 still doesn't work with GitHub: https://doesgithubhaveipv6yet.com/
It is "incompetence," or at the very least, it is unwise.
At the very least, a huge part of the intent of Git's very design was decentralization; though as is the case with many good tools, people don't use them as they are designed.
Going further, simply because "deeply centralized Git" is very popular, does not AT ALL determine that "this is the better way to do things." Please don't frame it as if "popular equals ideal."
God forbid we learn how our tools work.
People use github because it has a bunch of features outside git and because they don't already have a server.
Not because it's hard or obscure to put git on your server.
> Its because GitHub "Just Works".
Unfortunately (though expected), ever since Microsoft took over this has devolved into GitHub "sometimes works".
I understand where you're coming from, but this seems like a terrible defeatist attitude to have.
What are we supposed to do ... throw our hands up because GitHub won?
I'll be down voted, but I'll say it. If you hold that attitude and you don't learn the fundamentals, if you don't understand your tools, you're a bad developer and a poor craftsman. You're not someone I would hire or work with.
git is not "the fundamentals". It's a tool that's very difficult to learn but we are forced to use because "it won" at some point.
Git's difficulty is NOT intrinsic; it could be a much better tool if Torvalds were better at UX. In short, I don't blame people who don't want to "learn git". They shouldn't have to learn it anymore than one learns to use a browser or Google docs.
Git isn't fundamental, but version control is. If you're doing development without it, you're making a mistake.
You're likely using a VCS, which is likely git (or jj, hg, fossil, tfs, etc).
Therefore, you should know how to use whatever you're using. It shouldn't be "invisible" to you.
> Technology is best when it is invisible
For normal users. Having this tribal knowledge is basically what makes developer and it’s their job to make technology invisible for others. Someone has to be behind the curtain.
> Why is GitHub popular? its not because people are "dumb" as others think.
> Its because GitHub "Just Works".
Git also "just works". GitHub simply offers a higher level of abstraction, a graphical UI, and some value-add features on top of Git. How much better all this really is arguable. I would say that it's disastrous that most developers rely on a centralized service to use a distributed version control system. Nevermind the fact that the service is the single largest repository of open source software, owned and controlled by a giant corporation which has historically been hostile to OSS.
GitHub "won" because it came around at the right time, had "Git" in its name—which has been a perpetual cause of confusion w.r.t. its relation with Git—, and boosted by the success of Git itself largely due to the cult of personality around Linus Torvalds. Not because Git was technically superior, or because GitHub "just works".
> You don't need obscure tribal knowledge
As others have said, a bare repository is certainly not "tribal knowledge". Not anymore than knowing how to use basic Git features.
> Like the adge goes, "Technology is best when it is invisible"
Eh, all technology is an abstraction layer built on top of other technology. Whether it's "invisible" or not depends on the user, and their comfort level. I would argue that all abstractions also make users "dumber" when it comes to using the layers they abstract. Which is why people who only rely on GitHub lose the ability, or never learn, to use Git properly.