The Official Status Thread
-
If somebody renames the topic later, the notification notifier thingy doesn't reach out and edit the notifications it has already notified.
Yeah, I mean it makes sense, I guess. I probably wouldn't have stored the thread name in the notification--probably--because that way it'd always be current. That's how links to other topics work, isn't it--they display the current topic name?
-
That was me. I put a unicode cow in the title, which worked at first and then didn't anymore.
I was wondering what the joke was supposed to be. "The gross orkers thread" didn't seem too funny.
-
I put a unicode cow in the title
I can't remember--has anyone tried putting zalgotext in a title?
-
I was wondering what the joke was supposed to be. "The gross orkers thread" didn't seem too funny.
It was "The gross 🐄orkers thread" until Dicsource did its magic.
-
Yes. And I think it worked but not anymore due to sanitizing, or something like that.
-
That was me. I put a unicode cow in the title, which worked at first and then didn't anymore.
Ugh...is that back?
-
-
It was "The gross 🐄orkers thread" until Dicsource did its magic.
I think it worked but not anymore due to sanitizing, or something like that.
I guess the Discodevs don't think anyone in countries where basic — dare I say it? — discourse in the native language requires Unicode characters would ever want to use Discourse1.1Want to use Discourse — Bwahahaha!
-
I'm expected to read all the way to the bottom before replying now?
Nah, you don't even have to read the title. Here you can just post your thoughts wherever you feel like. Look, I'm replying to your post in a completely unrelated thread and it's OK.
-
Status: trying to work out the difference between "Discard", "Remove" and "Unstage from index[sic]".
I think I got it now, but holy bejeezus is that terminology confusing. Note that this is the "easy" UI Git users rave about.
-
"easy" UI Git users rave about.
.... GIT has a GUI? (i am buttuming you are talking about a GUI being on a windows box. please ignore if i'm wrong)
i thought all it had was the CLI?
also if i recall correctly:
- Discard: throw out changes and restore to checked out version
- Remove: remove from source control
- Unstage: remove from the set of changes to be committed but do not otherwise change the file on disk
unless of course the GUI decided to rename a bunch of crap (i'm looking at you tortoiseGit!)
-
You know, the guys who made the Visual Studio UI for Git chose to use terminology that ACTUALLY MAKES FUCKING SENSE.
Instead of "Discard" (which, to a normal person, is the exact same thing as "Remove"), they use "Undo Changes"-- wow! Undo Changes actually describes what that feature does!
Instead of "Unstage" (which is gibberish jargon), it uses "Ignore Changes".
Other than Microsoft, I don't think there's a single individual or company backing Git that doesn't take extreme pleasure in making things as unnecessarily complicated as possible. Goddamned.
-
Other than Microsoft, I don't think there's a single individual or company backing Git that doesn't take extreme pleasure in making things as unnecessarily complicated as possible. Goddamned.
The Eclipse Git UI is fairly simple to use. It does stick with some of the Git terminology though.
-
Status: The x-ray machine right next to me keeps making noises. Like relays kicking on, buzzing noises, etc.
The nurses may be trying to kill or sterilize me...
-
Status: Probably about to get in a foolish argument on another forum about sound stuff and the whole power/SPL vs perceived volume thing. Some guy tells me I'm wrong then posts a link to an article which backs up my side of the argument.
-
It does stick with some of the Git terminology though.
Which is the sensible terms used by Microsoft or (much more likely) the confusing, jargon-filled bullshit used by SourceTree?
-
Status: Dreading the potential repair bill for my car. It's unstable at idle (cuts out when cold), down on power (yet occasionally surges), and something in the exhaust rattles under heavy throttle.
-
-shrug-
so the names are weird.
you get used to it.
-
I'm not sure you realize who you're talking to :3
-
Seems to be a bit of both.
-
Rattles could just be the heat shield or the baffles inside. Not necessarily a problem. Could be a hole too.
The other thing could just be a sensor like the coolant temp sensor or MAF.
-
-
-shrug-
so the names are weird.
Right but WHY are they weird?
Let me guess: because the people who created it have ZERO shits to give about usability and don't care if they use misleading terminology because it lets them then point-and-laugh and make fun of normal people for not "getting it".
FUCK THAT ATTITUDE. That's everything wrong in software development.
If you do shit like that, you DESERVE to be criticized for it. You should be the one people are pointing at and laughing, you're the joke.
If you're the asshole saying "you just get used to it, WINK SHRUG!" you are part of the problem and should fuck off and go dig ditches for a living. You're the reason software is hard and nobody likes computers.
-
Let me guess: because the people who created it have ZERO shits to give about usability
i'm guessing it's because Linus Torvalds is ESL.
also because he has an attitude very similar to another denizen ot this forum.
zero points for guessing who.
source: author citation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)
-
If it was easy to use then people couldn't brag about being git experts or whatever.
Same thing with Unixy tools and vim.Edit: spellars fixed.
-
i'm guessing it's because Linus Torvalds is ESL.
And he's too fucking stupid and retarded to ask a native speaker if he chose the best terminology? And we're using software written by someone that stupid and retarded? You're not helping the case here.
-
You're not helping the case here.
neither are you.
your company uses GIT. pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.
it's far too late to change the terminology.
-
I'm sure he could fork GIT and put in words that make sense.
-
I'm sure he could fork GIT and put in words that make sense.
that would be one way of dealing with it.
-
it's far too late to change the terminology.
It's not too late to communicate to dumbshits like you that the terminology is a VERY STUPID BAD IDEA BUG WRONG BROKEN SHIT.
Maybe next time someone writes software, they'll give a shit whether it's any good or not.
Again: YOU ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM HERE. Stop just taking shit and swallowing it and saying, "oh wow this is so good, give me more shit!!!" Git is shitty software. It's bad. It's awful. Anybody who says otherwise is an idiot who should be banned from writing any software ever again.
"Oh he's ESL whine whine whine" so fucking what! He's not an infant, he knows how to TALK to people and ask for help when he needs it. And if he doesn't, if it's really that fucking stupid, then why the shit is anybody using software by this person?!
-
I guess the Discodevs don't think anyone in countries where basic — dare I say it? — discourse in the native language requires Unicode characters would ever want to use Discourse.
We had unicode getting stripped yesterday (?) until sam restarted discourse. But at least one other thread currently has unicode in it that hasn't been stripped, so maybe we're only partially to where we were the other day.
Is it good that today's bugginess is discoursistent?
-
It's not too late to communicate to dumbshits like you that the terminology is a VERY STUPID BAD IDEA BUG WRONG BROKEN SHIT.
"I have changes that are staged for commit but i don't want to commit them" => unstage
"i have a file i wish to get rid of" => Remove
"I made some changes but they made things worse i wish to go back to source version" => discard
those operations make sense.
and those names are fixed in the back end. if you don't like them you are more than welcome to write a new UI that makes sense to you. have fun with that.
GIT as a system works, and when you learn what the operations are they make sense. they might not be the best names ever chosen, but whatever. you can always install a GUI or other front end that hides them from you. there's several out there. and if none of those work, write your own.
now i'd agree with you if they called deleting a file from source windowing, but they called it removing, which makes sense (particularly if you remember that the original release did not, by default, delete the file from disk)
-
Right but WHY are they weird?
Because you were thinking in a different way. Honestly, I don't know (because I haven't used) git, but your preferred terms sound, err, dumbed down, a bit. Which is to say, they sounds simpler because the use terms you're more familiar with at the expense of hiding what's really going on.
-
"I have changes that are staged for commit but i don't want to commit them" => unstage
"i have a file i wish to get rid of" => Remove
"I made some changes but they made things worse i wish to go back to source version" => discard
those operations make sense.
Well duh. Who the fuck said otherwise?
It's the NAMES that are fucking awful, not the very existence of the operations themselves.
and those names are fixed in the back end. if you don't like them you are more than welcome to write a new UI that makes sense to you.
I have one. The problem is Git was broken in some creative way that I needed a second one to fix. Because Git is always broken, because it's a piece of crap.
GIT as a system works,
Right; it's dancing-bear-ware. I think by 2015 we're FUCKING PAST THAT. Jesus.
and when you learn what the operations are they make sense.
Well duh. Who the fuck said otherwise?
But the NAMES won't.
Because you were thinking in a different way. Honestly, I don't know (because I haven't used) git, but your preferred terms sound, err, dumbed down, a bit. Which is to say, they sounds simpler because the use terms you're more familiar with at the expense of hiding what's really going on.
What "dumbing down" is there in the term "Undo Changes" compared to "Discard"? And note: it's not "Discard Changes", it's just "Discard." The former would have been at least slightly understandable.
Seriously though. Answer that question. How is it "dumbed down"? How?
Of course I know you don't have an answer, because nobody who uses the term "dumbed down" ever knows what the fuck they're talking about.
-
-
you get used to it.
Keep in mind that you're replying to someone who when he says "usability" is really referring to usability by him, which is only coincidentally related to usability by anyone else. It's also ironic (that's probably the wrong term; pendants, have at it!) that he refuses to read enough about Git to understand and use it effectively but in another thread makes fun of people who use Windows 7 as a newer, shinier version of XP and never bother learning about the new features.
-
It's the NAMES that are fucking awful, not the very existence of the operations themselves.
no, the names make sense. they require you to think, but then so does programming.
pull up your damn panties and deal with it.
and if you're not willing to deal with it then maybe programming is not for you.
-
Goddamned.
You know you're using that word wrong, right? the canonical usage is "Goddamn" when you're using it as a noun. "Goddamned" functions as an adjective, as in "your repeated misuse of that word would be goddamned annoying if you were doing it on purpose."
-
Status: Dreading the potential repair bill for my car. It's unstable at idle (cuts out when cold), down on power (yet occasionally surges),
I had a Ford Escort that did all of that except the exhaust rattle and the surging. It probably had something wrong with it, but I found that I could get by with just keeping my foot lightly on the gas at idle so it wouldn't stall. The car lasted like 5 years like that, until the transmission died.
-
so the names are weird.
you get used to it.
But why should you have to? I have to agree with Blakey here. Shitty names are a barrier to understanding. Someone should have told the person who came up with those terms he wasn't allowed to name thing any more.
-
and if you're not willing to deal with it then maybe programming is not for you.
It looks like you didn't get the blakeymemo. Programming is for everyone who wants to program. So what if they end up on the front page of this site?
-
Seriously though. Answer that question. How is it "dumbed down"? How?
FUCK YOU READ WHAT I WROTE.
Of course I know you don't have an answer I can admit that I understand, because
nobody who uses the term "dumbed down" ever knowsI never understand what the fuck they're talking about.FTFY
-
If it was easy to use then people couldn't brag about being got experts or whatever.
Nonsense.
-
"I have changes that are staged for commit but i don't want to commit them" => unstage
I would have called that "undo staging" or something.
"i have a file i wish to get rid of" => Remove
Possibly OK. "Delete" would have been better.
"I made some changes but they made things worse i wish to go back to source version" => discard
I would have used "revert" or possibly "undo" or if I had to use the word "discard", "discard changes".
See how much clearer those are?
-
This begs the question of whether that would be a bad thing ...
Are you trying to generate more pendantry badges?
-
in another thread makes fun of people who use Windows 7 as a newer, shinier version of XP and never bother learning about the new features.
YOu don't think that's trolling? I do.
-
YOu don't think that's trolling? I do.
Recognizing trolling here is like a fish recognizing water.
-
But why should you have to
ideally, you shouldn't but ranting and screaming like a toddler who just had their candy stolen because terminology is a bit weird that you get used to after a couple of days of dealing with it, possibly with the help of a cheat sheet is... well counterproductive shouting for the sake of shouting.
it's different if you are in a position to correct the terminology, but GIT is 10 years old and was written, and is maintained, by a developer well known for their lack of patience with people who hold ideas contrary to their own.
-
I would have called that "undo staging" or something.
The problem is that add both adds files and stages them. Therefore remove and unstage are ambiguous. if you want to go with add doing both, then you should just have one remove with a flag that states if you are wanting to remove from the repo or just the change from the commit.
I think the better solution is to have a git stage command to add changes, but then you have to add a command where the 'add' command seems like it would take care of both.
Or just use the second option and rename add to stage. Now it's clear what each command does unstage unstages the change, remove removes from the repo, and discard (which could be renamed to undo, but I think that would be a poor choice (EDIT: revert makes sense here though)) discards the changes you're currently working on.
-
that he refuses to read enough about Git to understand and use it effectively
Why should I have to?
no, the names make sense.
:"Discard" compared to "Remove"? Makes sense?
They only make sense if you mentally fill-in the missing words there: "Discard Changes", "Remove File from Change Set". Unless you somehow telepathically know what those missing words are, the names are gibberish. (And note that "change set" is still jargon, but that one might be unavoidable.)
and if you're not willing to deal with it then maybe programming is not for you.
It's not too much to ask to have quality development tools while programming.
But why should you have to? I have to agree with Blakey here. Shitty names are a barrier to understanding. Someone should have told the person who came up with those terms he wasn't allowed to name thing any more.
Thank you.
Programming is for everyone who wants to program.
Correct. And the easier development tools are, the more software we get. The more software we get, the more quality software we get.
FUCK YOU READ WHAT I WROTE.
I read it. I just saw vagueness about them "hiding what's really going on", which makes no fucking sense to me. "Undo Changes" is exactly what's going on-- where's the "hiding"?
ideally, you shouldn't but ranting and screaming like a toddler who just had their candy stolen because terminology is a bit weird that you get used to after a couple of days of dealing with it, possibly with the help of a cheat sheet is... well counterproductive shouting for the sake of shouting.
No. When someone's doing something wrong, you speak-up and say so. Especially when something's massively over-rated and simultaneously massively broken. Like Git.
Note that me complaining about Git's terminology is not mutually-exclusive with me doing my day-to-day work on Git. Even though moron dumbshits like you always seem to think it is, probably because you have a brain that a blowfly would find limiting.
it's different if you are in a position to correct the terminology, but GIT is 10 years old and was written, and is maintained, by a developer well known for their lack of patience with people who hold ideas contrary to their own.
The mistake was made 10 years ago. The problem now is DUMB FUCKS LIKE YOU DEFENDING IT. Stop defending shitty software.
