"Just supply a PR"
-
The fact that Git seems to require drastic measures like rebasing does not endear me to its reliability.
As far as I understand it, rebase fetches a remote branch, then puts your local changes over it (basically does a diff between what you checked out initially, then applies that diff over whatever branch you're rebasing to).
@blakeyrat said:I've never had a bike go more than 250 or so.
What kind of crap bikes do you buy? I don't have anything fancy, but can easily do 250 miles in a week on mine (or could - I've been a bit lazy this year).
-
Probably the Wal*Mart special. With generous use of WD-40 in the chain.
-
Do you know what PR stands for as codinghorror used it?
Julio Valdez maybe, but he's Dominican, not Puerto Rican.
-
How many of you have done 3000 miles in three days on a bike?
-
Yes Jeff is absolutely right ...and its unique packaging can confound even the sharpest minds at first, second, and third attempt.
You can't just open a database and seek out things you have an additional SSH jump into the docker bubble then, well then I usually have to get help. Sam showed me a simplified way to get in and do basic queries, Riking has a method that is not something I am used to I think it is redis bash type commands to fix things in the tables and it goes right over my head. Which is sad, because I think I am a good programmer (in the dynamic languages space)
With Discourse it is really neat how fast you get up and running and you are glazed over the beauty of the app and the concept but then things get weird and atypical. Then you hit the technology boundaries in yourself very quick.
I don't know anyone who knows this stuff very well. I believe it is partly the way they code things. Very terse code in some of the files I have cracked open. Very objectified, great for the machine, not so good for human readability (mind you I have only looked at a small sample of things to trace only a few things that concerned my discourse site and the problems I created (by myself)).
During the height of my exploration misery. I found myself overtaken by a bought of ADHD and decided to quell my pain by reading the top Stack Overflow answers EVAR convo and one of the answers started to do this....
HTML tags lea͠ki̧n͘g fr̶ǫm ̡yo͟ur eye͢s̸ ̛l̕ik͏e liquid pain, the song of re̸gular expression parsing will extinguish the voices of mortal man from the sphere I can see it can you see ̲͚̖͔̙î̩́t̲͎̩̱͔́̋̀ it is beautiful the final snuffing of the lies of Man ALL IS LOŚ͖̩͇̗̪̏̈́T ALL IS LOST the pon̷y he comes he c̶̮omes he comes the ichor permeates all MY FACE MY FACE ᵒh god no NO NOO̼OO NΘ stop the an*̶͑̾̾̅ͫ͏̙̤g͇̫͛͆̾ͫ̑͆l͖͉̗̩̳̟̍ͫͥͨe̠̅s ͎a̧͈͖r̽̾̈́͒͑e not rè̑ͧ̌aͨl̘̝̙̃ͤ͂̾̆ ZA̡͊͠͝LGΌ ISͮ̂҉̯͈͕̹̘̱ TO͇̹̺ͅƝ̴ȳ̳ TH̘Ë͖́̉ ͠P̯͍̭O̚N̐Y̡ H̸̡̪̯ͨ͊̽̅̾̎Ȩ̬̩̾͛ͪ̈́̀́͘ ̶̧̨̱̹̭̯ͧ̾ͬC̷̙̲̝͖ͭ̏ͥͮ͟Oͮ͏̮̪̝͍M̲̖͊̒ͪͩͬ̚̚͜Ȇ̴̟̟͙̞ͩ͌͝S̨̥̫͎̭ͯ̿̔̀ͅ
RegEx match open tags except XHTML self-contained tags
I need to match all of these opening tags: <p> <a href="foo"> But not self-closing tags: <br /> <hr class="foo" /> I came up with this and wanted to make
That is how I felt. It seems to be that code obfuscation is alive and well in this world and that Discourse is open source software, that really doesn't feel open sourced. Sure you can fork it and do something cool but know that your are dealing with something much more complex:
-
Pull Request.
-
You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML. As I have answered in HTML-and-regex questions here so many times before, the use of regex will not allow you to consume HTML. Regular expressions are a tool that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the constructs employed by HTML. HTML is not a regular language and hence cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Regex queries are not equipped to break down HTML into its meaningful parts. so many times but it is not getting to me. Even enhanced irregular regular expressions as used by Perl are not up to the task of parsing HTML. You will never make me crack. HTML is a language of sufficient complexity that it cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Even Jon Skeet cannot parse HTML using regular expressions. Every time you attempt to parse HTML with regular expressions, the unholy child weeps the blood of virgins, and Russian hackers pwn your webapp. Parsing HTML with regex summons tainted souls into the realm of the living. HTML and regex go together like love, marriage, and ritual infanticide. The <center> cannot hold it is too late. The force of regex and HTML together in the same conceptual space will destroy your mind like so much watery putty. If you parse HTML with regex you are giving in to Them and their blasphemous ways which doom us all to inhuman toil for the One whose Name cannot be expressed in the Basic Multilingual Plane, he comes. HTML-plus-regexp will liquify the nerves of the sentient whilst you observe, your psyche withering in the onslaught of horror. Rege̿̔̉x-based HTML parsers are the cancer that is killing StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the trangession of a chi͡ld ensures regex will consume all living tissue (except for HTML which it cannot, as previously prophesied) dear lord help us how can anyone survive this scourge using regex to parse HTML has doomed humanity to an eternity of dread torture and security holes using regex as a tool to process HTML establishes a breach between this world and the dread realm of c͒ͪo͛ͫrrupt entities (like SGML entities, but more corrupt) a mere glimpse of the world of regex parsers for HTML will instantly transport a programmer's consciousness into a world of ceaseless screaming, he comes
, the pestilent slithy regex-infection will devour your HTML parser, application and existence for all time like Visual Basic only worse he comes he comes do not fight he com̡e̶s, ̕h̵is un̨ho͞ly radiańcé destro҉ying all enli̍̈́̂̈́ghtenment, HTML tags lea͠ki̧n͘g fr̶ǫm ̡yo͟ur eye͢s̸ ̛l̕ik͏e liquid pain, the song of re̸gular expression parsingwill extinguish the voices of mortal man from the sphere I can see it can you see ̲͚̖͔̙î̩́t̲͎̩̱͔́̋̀ it is beautiful the final snuffing of the lies of Man ALL IS LOŚ͖̩͇̗̪̏̈́T ALL IS LOST the pon̷y he comes he c̶̮omes he comes the ichor permeates all MY FACE MY FACE ᵒh god no NO NOO̼OO NΘ stop the an*̶͑̾̾̅ͫ͏̙̤g͇̫͛͆̾ͫ̑͆l͖͉̗̩̳̟̍ͫͥͨe̠̅s͎a̧͈͖r̽̾̈́͒͑enot rè̑ͧ̌aͨl̘̝̙̃ͤ͂̾̆ ZA̡͊͠͝LGΌ ISͮ̂҉̯͈͕̹̘̱ TO͇̹̺ͅƝ̴ȳ̳ TH̘Ë͖́̉ ͠P̯͍̭O̚N̐Y̡ H̸̡̪̯ͨ͊̽̅̾̎Ȩ̬̩̾͛ͪ̈́̀́͘ ̶̧̨̱̹̭̯ͧ̾ͬC̷̙̲̝͖ͭ̏ͥͮ͟Oͮ͏̮̪̝͍M̲̖͊̒ͪͩͬ̚̚͜Ȇ̴̟̟͙̞ͩ͌͝S̨̥̫͎̭ͯ̿̔̀ͅ
-
I fix something in my forked repo. I commit the change, I submit a request that the pull my code change into their repo and make it part of the source.
But then the exciting part comes. Will they take your change or deny it.
I then wait in anticipation and see how the chips fall.
-
I'm not going to win any friend points with this response, but whatever.
Jeff is looking at the bigger picture and I would venture to speculate that it doesn't stop here.
I am sure he is concerned about his legacy in technology history.
Let me show you how 'I think' Jeff's mind works:
Mark Zuckerberg
Bill Gates
Jeff AtwoodHe wants his team to be number one.
He wants to be number one.
Jeff, the Ginger and the trout fish? Those guys operate in a god damn fucking hard to flourish production space.
You know, he is giving all of us a model for success, right? Just watching things transpire since version 0.9.9.3 have been immensely useful.
Love it or hate it Jeff and Discourse have certainly shook up the dialog on development, software adoption, usability, collaboration and how their team operates AND one or two things about running a technology company.
Or maybe I'm the only one paying attention?
Filed under: Didn't like what I had to say? Go ahead and click the heart button (lower right).
-
I've never done that. I've gone a mile in 3 minutes during rush hour, though.
-
I've never done that. I've gone a mile in 3 minutes during rush hour, though.
I've done a mile in less than 30 seconds. Hmmm.
-
I've done a mile in about 8 seconds.
Sometimes a jetliner is more practical than a car. Not always, though.
-
I'm not going to win any friend points with this response, but whatever.
Jeff is looking at the bigger picture and I would venture to speculate that it doesn't stop here.
I am sure he is concerned about his legacy in technology history.
Let me show you how 'I think' Jeff's mind works:
Mark ZuckerbergBill GatesJeff Atwood
He wants his team to be number one.
He wants to be number one.
Jeff, the Ginger and the trout fish? Those guys operate in a god damn fucking hard to flourish production space.
You know, he is giving all of us a model for success, right? Just watching things transpire since version 0.9.9.3 have been immensely useful.
Love it or hate it Jeff and Discourse have certainly shook up the dialog on development, software adoption, usability, collaboration and how their team operates AND one or two things about running a technology company.
Or maybe I'm the only one paying attention?
Filed under: Didn't like what I had to say? Go ahead and click the heart button (lower right).
Did Nagesh turn into you?
-
The only time I actually had to go nuclear was when I accidentally merged development branch into master and kept coding for another week or two before I found out. I tried all the Ben's fancy options, but in the end, I think I simply did
reset --hardto the last good commit and then manually applied the last two weeks of work.Cherry-pick merges can help you when you're disentangling the mess, along with some strategic branch renaming. You'll want a history browser (possibly even a GUI one) when doing this.
The thing that grinds my gears about git is that it sometimes manages to completely lose track of a branch. OK, it happened to me once but that's once more than I consider reasonable. When git shits itself, it fucks things up awfully. Other DVCSes are much better at avoiding these worse cases because they don't necessarily make the mistake of thinking that all filesystem operations file nicely all the time.
-
-
The thing that grinds my gears about git is that it sometimes manages to completely lose track of a branch. OK, it happened to me once but that's once more than I consider reasonable. When git shits itself, it fucks things up awfully. Other DVCSes are much better at avoiding these worse cases because they don't necessarily make the mistake of thinking that all filesystem operations file nicely all the time.
DETACHED HEAD!
For about a year that was the bane of my existence.
A fancy-ass way of saying “patch”.
I hate to break this to you, but "patch" is also impenetrable jargon.
-
I hate to break this to you, but "patch" is also impenetrable jargon.
"Changes shit in the source code so it will work. We hope."
But that's a bit too long to type every time, IMHO.
-
Cherry-pick merges can help you when you're disentangling the mess, along with some strategic branch renaming. You'll want a history browser (possibly even a GUI one) when doing this.
Oh I tried a bunch of them, believe me. None of them helped me.
-
I've done a mile in about 8 seconds.
Sometimes a jetliner is more practical than a car. Not always, though.
As pilot? Hmmm.
-
This one actually is his:
"If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough." - Einstein
-
DETACHED HEAD!
For about a year that was the bane of my existence.
I remember learning about those when that happened. And then I forgot, and fought with it during my recent conversion effort when I was converting some svn-centric devops stuff to work with git. Now I've re-learned it, and it's a new reason why I'll pick mercurial in the future over git when I have a choice.
-
DETACHED HEAD!
For about a year that was the bane of my existence.
Agreed. And if you ask for help, all you hear is "You're doing it wrong."
So I learned enough Git to fix the problem and went back to Darcs, where it never happens.
-
Yeah, and in fact I have intentionally used the equivalent of detached heads in mercurial a lot. It's no big deal there, and can be quite useful. You just have another anonymous branch that you either close or merge.
Reading about it this last go around, it strikes me as an implementation detail that could (and should) be fixed to be more like other systems.
-
Yeah, and in fact I have intentionally used the equivalent of detached heads in mercurial a lot. It's no big deal there, and can be quite useful. You just have another anonymous branch that you either close or merge.
The problem is that git insists on giving a name to just one thing at a time. The underlying tree-of-commits model doesn't really care, but the shitty front-end scripts do.I use git inside eclipse for the most part (because lightweight clients are for pussies!) and that handles most things well, even where you've got wild-ass anonymous branches. The things it doesn't like are having multiple upstreams or having upstream branches with different names to your local branches. Because having a non-trivial workflow or wanting to use your own (weird to everyone else) naming scheme is Not Done. Grrrrr.
I'll pick mercurial in the future over git when I have a choice.
Wise. I'd pick something else for my own projects, but I don't worry about persuading anyone else about the rightness of my decisions there.
-
I'd pick something else for my own projects, but I don't worry about persuading anyone else about the rightness of my decisions there.
What would you pick? Why? Honest questions...
-
I'd pick fossil, because I know the main developer of it personally. It's also very robust, as it stores its history in an SQLite DB (and that's heavily tested).
-
I just can't hate on productive people. Its a barrier to reality.
-
The 21-year-old, from Zlin, Czech Republic, had spent four hours smoking 'skunk' before clambering on to the cables in the belief she was crossing a bridge.
Must have been really good
.I'll have what she's having.
-
rebase which re-applies your changes onto a different "base" commit
git help rebasehas a decent visual explanation:Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic":
A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master
From this point, the result of either of the following commands:git rebase master
git rebase master topicwould be:
A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master
-
Git seems to require drastic measures like rebasing
Git doesn't force rebase on you in any way. In fact there are people actively against its use.It just lets you simplify history, making it look more linear, if you want to.
As far as I understand it, rebase fetches a remote branch, then puts your local changes over it
Nope. Both branches are local. One or both of them can be local mirrors of remote branches, of course.And btw, the commits aren't rewritten. New commits are created, but the old ones are still there if you look for them.
Disclaimer: not a git expert, my views can be wrong.
-
git help rebase has a decent visual explanation
Hmm, I see.
If I wanted something like this, I would just do:
git checkout topic git merge masterThis would bring me up to speed with changes on
master, while keeping the new stuff ontopic.What's the difference?
-
What's the difference?
History.With a merge you'd have a single new commit in master (the merge) and history would show two parallel branches that merged.
/--A---B---C\ D---E---F---G-----H---
With rebase you'd have those three commits on top of master, and it would look like a single branch once you dropped the topic branch and its original commits:
D---E---F---G---A'---B'---C'
Both commands have their uses. With merge you keep real history, with rebase history looks less like spaghetti. Also, with rebase the commit messages of your topic branch get transferred to the master branch, which may or may not be something you want.
-
Mind-boggling that he seriously thinks that only a human could ever spam his JS via the UI?
From the looks of it they don't have automated tests over at Discourse (apart from unit tests). One reason might be that over there indeed no one has heard of watir/watin.
-
I can't tell you what a "Pull Request" is, since nobody's explained that to me and the GitHub website is about as clear as mud on the subject.
A concise explanation can be found in GitHub help.
-
Quoting Jeff:
(psst.. but they don't, because spammers are idiots. The ones that aren't are rarer than hen's teeth.)
And that from the man that claimed Discourse instances with 10k posts in a topic a rarer than unicorns. Hen's teeths must be quite common then...
-
As rare as hen's teeth? Not any more, say scientists
If you thought hen's teeth were the rarest thing in nature, think again: researchers from Britain and the US have succeeded in growing teeth in a chicken.
If you thought hen's teeth were the rarest thing in nature, think again: researchers from Britain and the US have succeeded in growing teeth in a chicken.
...
...
the team has been able to stimulate "natural" tooth growth in chickens.
-
And that from the man that claimed Discourse instances with 10k posts in a topic a rarer than unicorns. Hen's teeths must be quite common then...
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/feb/23/research.highereducation
Did they have anything to say on the mater of rocking-horse shit?
-
I always find it amazing how many people read, "I don't know how X works", as "would someone explain how X works?"
For the record, I do not give one shit how pull requests work. If I ever need to know, I'll look it up. But I won't. So I won't.
-
That's because not everyone is a miserable sod who cares not for being enlightened by the wisdom of their peers and betters.
Which is ironic, really, considering everything.
-
-
I always find it amazing how many people read, "I don't know how X works", as "would someone explain how X works?"
For the record, I do not give one shit how pull requests work. If I ever need to know, I'll look it up. But I won't. So I won't.
For the record, I was explicitly referring to your "and the GitHub website is about as clear as mud on [pull requests]".Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
-
Wisdom is avoiding all open source bullshit on Github until it's no longer possible. Wasting my precious neurons and time on learning all about it is stupidity.
-
I always find it amazing how many people read, "I don't know how X works", as "would someone explain how X works?"
For the record, I do not give one shit how pull requests work. If I ever need to know, I'll look it up. But I won't. So I won't.
Yes, this is because you are a special sort of asshole who just wants people to agree with you and to praise you for you excellent insights and aren't very interested in learning about or from other people.
Wisdom is avoiding all open source bullshit on Github until it's no longer possible. Wasting my precious neurons and time on learning all about it is stupidity.
And yet you persist in reading and responding to it.
-
And yet you persist in reading and responding to it.
Yes; Boomzilla's telepathy has informed him that I clicked the link, read the entire article or FAQ or whatever it is (which I know because I clicked the link, right?) and then even responded to it! Because I guess it has a comments section too, but of course I know that, having clicked the link.
-
Did they have anything to say on the mater of rocking-horse shit?
How about carousel horse shit? Sadly, I can't find any images or video of this part of the movie. Or even people talking about it.
-
Yes; Boomzilla's telepathy has informed him that I clicked the link, read the entire article or FAQ or whatever it is (which I know because I clicked the link, right?) and then even responded to it! Because I guess it has a comments section too, but of course I know that, having clicked the link.
No, I'm talking about the people here. You keep reading the responses and wasting neurons responding to us. It's truly a wasteful tragedy of your abilities, which of course still don't include reading comprehension.
-
For the record, I do not give one shit how pull requests work. If I ever need to know, I'll look it up. But I won't. So I won't.
Someone, however, might. Like me, you know, looking for something online and then finding someone asked the same question as me, and getting a response. That means I don't have to ask the same question again.
Granted, TDWTF probably won't finish on the first page of results if someone searches for "how to do x". But it might. Or, someone else could ask here and I can just refer him to a post.
If you don't want to read it, fine, scroll past. But I also got corrected on my explanation and thus learned something new. And I don't consider that a waste of my neurons. I have plenty left.
-
Wasting my precious neurons and time on learning
Does learning kill your neurons? If so, that would explain so much.
-
It can be a delicate balancing act.
-
I regret I have only one like to give this post.
