Prosontod wothot commot:
-
it just makes a copy somewhere else that is then edited later.
a PR is you asking upstream to merge your changes.
But when has a finance guy done anything like this.
You have to explain in terms of experience, even if the terms are incorrect, they are most correct for the context of the listener.
-
All the time.
"Forking is like when you download a document from Sharepoint and edit it on your local machine. A pull request is like when you email it to the person who maintains the document and ask if they can update it on the Sharepoint."
-
Is it really so wrong to think Fox should have actually, y'know, looked up these terms before making shi-
Oh, wait, making shit up is the only thing Fox 'News' does…
-
"Forking is like when you download a document from Sharepoint and edit it on your local machine. A pull request is like when you email it to the person who maintains the document and ask if they can update it on the Sharepoint."
And that explanation is 29856348790256784067548206578493.2437892847932× better than the ones Fox 'News' used
-
I could've sworn I was attacking <dedL.Fox 'News'the English language…
FTFY
But Fox couldn't have said something stupid because they're the good guys!
Shit...I know I'll just sound more like blakey, but I stand by what I said, and when they say something dumb I say so. Of course, this wasn't even Fox News we're talking about, soooo....
-
Is it really so wrong to think Fox should have actually, y'know, looked up these terms before making shi-
And yet, you've so far failed to show how what they said is actually wrong from a layperson's point of view.
Oh, wait, making shit up is the only thing Fox 'News' does
-
They did.
It went through probably 3 layers of communication before it ended up on the show.
The problem is that they didn't verify their results with the source.
A tech guy explained it to an interviewer.
Which was explained that to the writer
Which was explained and reviewed by an editor.
Which was explained and incorporated by the person making up the graphics (or inputting into a program that automates the graphics).So, not only do you have to worry about explaining it to a finance guy. You have layers of people changing it that don't even know what a finance guy knows.
So it's no wonder the definitions are the result of the lowest common denominator.
It's a much different environment than a textbook that is peer-reviewed and returned back to the writer, then published by a guy that rarely alters the original content.
Or worse yet, a blog or tech article on a public site, that's never reviewed formally.
Because we know those guys never make mistakes.
-
And that explanation is 29856348790256784067548206578493.2437892847932× better than the ones Fox 'News' used
And now you're the one making it up, since it wasn't Fox News.
:dickweed:
-
And yet, you've so far failed to show how what they said is actually wrong from a layperson's point of view.
OK, you want laydefinitions? Then you shall have laydefinitions!
- Repository - A place where developers store their code
- Forked - Copied the code from the repository to their machine so they can edit it
- Although it would have been better to use "Fork - Copy the code from the repository to their machine so they can edit it"
- Pull request - Sending their changes to the repository owner
There; suitable for the layperson, and 29567435023973897592.29836757839× more correct than Fox's 'definitions'.
-
There; suitable for the layperson,
And pretty damn congruent to the originals. Thanks for agreeing with me!
-
-
But… but… but… ARGH!
I don't get it, most people are happy when they agree with me. They LIKE being correct.
-
And yet, you've so far failed to show how what they said is actually wrong from a layperson's point of view.
None of it could have been wrong from a layperson's point of view. You could have said that "forking" was "deleting" a repo and a layperson would have believed you.
It went through probably 3 layers of communication before it ended up on the show.
Yeah, so I think it's understandable that they got it wrong, but they did get it wrong.
It's also not important that they explain the details of the Github workflow, because the viewer is not going to appreciate it anyway, but they did get it wrong.
-
- repository - publicly available[1] storage containing application code[2]
- forking - process of creating a copy of other's people code in order to make your own modifications
- pull request - process of contributing your own modifications to original code
There, asspull and technically inaccurate in some segments, but damned fucking closer and still understandable (IMHO)
[1] - In case of public GitHub repos, other definitions lead me to believe this is the aspect they were covering
[2] - And wasn't fucking "repository" a word before VCSs existed? Or am I crazy?
-
-
None of it could have been wrong from a layperson's point of view. You could have said that "forking" was "deleting" a repo and a layperson would have believed you.
Um...your comment bears no real life relation to what I said.
-
All of you are using too many big words in your explanations. I'll have the writer dumb them down.
-
I don't get it, most people are happy when they agree with me. They LIKE being correct.
I think you're just trolling me now, in order to make me have such a high post count for today I break the 2000/mo barrier and become infamous throughout the Land of TDWTF as the Hedgehog Who Just Won't Fucking Shut Up…
-
Maybe we should just give up on the "code" bit and turn it all into "cake"?
-
I think you're just trolling me now
I was worried that's what you were doing to me, TBH. Seriously, you guys are just too CDO today, I think.
-
- repository - publicly storage containing application code
- forking - process of creating a copy of other's people code in order to make your own modifications
- pull request - process of contributing your own modifications to original code
Good, but some may say it's still a bit too techy for laypeople. Certainly better than the Fox 'definitions', at any rate.
-
@RaceProUK said:
I think you're just trolling me now
I was worried that's what you were doing to me, TBH.
I don't troll, I spam
-
-
Right.
Yeah, it's like you guys are trying to imitate blakey's aggressive illiteracy mode. Which is fun for occasional humorous effect, but I'm not getting that vibe.
-
Yeah, it's like you guys are trying to imitate blakey's aggressive illiteracy mode
I'm not; I'm using emoji and meme images, two un-Blakey things to use
-
I'm not; I'm using emoji and meme images, two un-Blakey things to use
True...but you're still contradicting yourself. Not sure what @Bort is up to. He's usually funny and over the top. Maybe he just has a Fox allergy.
-
-
Why wouldn't you just edit it directly on Sharepoint? Your explanation is an idiot.
-
-
Because some dumbfuck screwed up the permissions. I've seen a a lot XD
-
The analogy breaks down whenever you reach a situation where Sharepoint is better than Git. This makes it a very leaky analogy
-
He's usually funny
NOT TRUE.
Maybe he just has a Fox allergy.
I don't have to hate the network to criticize it. It actually watch it fairly often. But I can still recognize when they say something dumb. This isn't even specific to this network. The media has always had trouble understanding technology, especially it's implementation. They're always getting the terminology wrong. (e.g. The movie "Source Code", which has nothing to do with what we would call source code*) It doesn't matter to the viewers, they just want shit to work. But they did get it wrong, a "Pull Request" is not about getting "editing rights", that's not how it works. Not a big deal, just an amusing little video clip.
[*] you argue that the simulation in the movie was written in source code so from a layperson's perspec-NO! IT'S IMPROPER USE OF THE TERMINOLOGY! FCUK!!!
-
Wait… what?
:sigh:How you say the definitions are wrong but then post "correct" definitions that aren't materially different than what we started with.
-
I posted different and more accurate definitions though…
@accalia! @boomzilla's being mean to me!
-
repository - where the code is, along with a history of the edits.
stream - a history of all edits of the repository
forking - splitting the stream. Most often to edit the code. It creates a copy of the code, and records the edits made, separately from the first stream.
pull request - a request to pull the forked stream back into the main stream. Applying the edits. If both streams have edits, they must be merged.
merge - to choose which edits from each stream become a part of the original stream.There. I made up a word in order to make the definitions work, be dumber, and almost as accurate.
-
They're always getting the terminology wrong.
Again, you're not really contradicting me by saying this.
But they did get it wrong, a "Pull Request" is not about getting "editing rights", that's not how it works.
Yeah, for a technical explanation, you're right. Except that it's still effectively what's going on, and the end result is that the guy sending the PR ends up with a limited right to edit the receiver's repo if it's accepted.
I don't have to hate the network to criticize it. It actually watch it fairly often. But I can still recognize when they say something dumb.
I can, too. But I'm also a good user of language and can recognize when different words refer to similar meanings. I rarely watch it, but get annoyed by people who say stupid things because they've heard the cool kids say similar stupid things. Which is definitely not limited to stuff like Fox News .
And people being stupid with language in a non-joking manner tickles me in a funny way (give me a doll and I'll show you where).
-
I posted different and more accurate definitions though…
Yes, but not really all that different. You're just getting hung up on some technical stuff and not relaxing the sphincter enough to realize that the non-technical use of the words on the screen are conveying the same thing to a non-technical person.
-
Honestly. I don't get why the definitions are even necessary.
Just say that GIT is a source control system that allows groups of people to collaborate on programming projects, and have a formal system for tracking and approving changes to the code.
The difference from other source control systems is that anyone can make their own version of the source (from any point in history) and track and approve changes to their version independently from the original.
-
the guy sending the PR ends up with a limited right to edit the receiver's repo if it's accepted.
False. That's not how it works.
Just say that GIT is a source control system that allows groups of people to collaborate on programming projects, and have a formal system for tracking and approving changes to the code.
That would have been great.
-
source control
You just lost 80% of Fox News' audience.
The term "source" is jargon. It's relatively common jargon, but it's jargon.
-
You just lost 80% of Fox News' audience.
The term "source" is jargon. It's relatively common jargon, but it's jargon.
But it's not required to understand my definition
Just say that GIT is a system that allows groups of people to collaborate on programming projects, and have a formal method for tracking and approving changes to the code.
-
-
Boomzilla, you're trying to do the "Linux hardware" thing but you just ain't as good at it as I am. Give up.
-
Just say that GIT is a source control system that allows groups of people to collaborate on programming projects, and have a formal system for tracking and approving changes to the code.
You don't even need that; since the piece is about GitHub, just say it's a website where programmers work together on software.
@boomzilla said:Yes, but not really all that different.
Different enough
@boomzilla said:You're just getting hung up on some technical stuff and not relaxing the sphincter enough to realize that the non-technical use of the words on the screen are conveying the same thing to a non-technical person.
But presenting definitions that are patently false is just… wrong
-
I love how people negate everyone's definition without offering a definition of their own.
That allows them to criticize without the risk of receiving criticism.That applies to more than just this discussion, or explanations actually. Also applies to problem solutions, and myriad of other concepts.
-
you're trying to do the "Linux hardware"
I don't think so.
But presenting definitions that are patently false is just… wrong
Now, if only they actually did that.
-
You don't even need that; since the piece is about GitHub, just say it's a website where programmers work together on software.
Well, I think they're trying to explain why GitHub is so valuable.
-
You don't even need that; since the piece is about GitHub, just say it's a website where programmers work together on software.
+1
What the viewers care about is GitHub as company. "Should I invest in it?"
I guess the network was trying to impress viewers with the jargon? To underscore the idea that GitHub is a tech company?
-
But presenting definitions that are patently false is just… wrong
Depends on what you mean by wrong.
If you take the definitions as,
This tries to accomplish the same goals as a system that does this, then they're right.
-
@RaceProUK said:
But presenting definitions that are patently false is just… wrong
Now, if only they actually did that.
It's Fox News; everything they say is a lie.
@xaade said:Well, I think they're trying to explain why GitHub is so valuable.
OK…You don't even need that; since the piece is about GitHub, just say it's a website where lots of programmers work together on software.
