←back to thread

Oh Shit, Git?

(ohshitgit.com)
464 points Anon84 | 10 comments | 16 Jan 25 18:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.791s | source | bottom
Show context
antithesis-nl ◴[16 Jan 25 18:43 UTC] No.42729179[source]▶
Yeah, please don't create sites like this. Just... don't.

Any, and I mean any "in case of a Git problem, just do this" recipe is wrong, often in very subtle ways. So, my advice: in case of a Git problem, contact the help channel provided by the organization hosting your Git repository. They'll help you out! And if it's your personal-I-am-truly-the-only-human-using-this repository? Just recreate it, and save yourself the pain.

Source: I'm part of the team behind the #githelp channel in many $DAYJOBs, and we know how hard things are. You committed an unencrypted password file, or worse, your entire 'secret' MP4 collection to our monorepo? Sure, just let us know! Pushed your experimental branch to master/main/head/whatever? We'll fix it!

Just don't ever, for whatever reason, run that-chain-of-commands you found on the Internet, without understanding what they do! In most cases, your initial mistake can be undone pretty quickly (despite requiring nonstandard tooling), but once you're three levels deep and four days later, not so much...

replies(4): >>42729324 #>>42729429 #>>42729795 #>>42730672 #
1over137 ◴[16 Jan 25 18:54 UTC] No.42729324[source]▶
We’re not all working at $bigcorp with dedicated help teams. Sites like this are great and have helped me many times!
replies(2): >>42729363 #>>42729392 #
antithesis-nl ◴[16 Jan 25 19:00 UTC] No.42729392[source]▶
OK, so you've truly screwed up your your personal/small-team repos to the point of requiring poorly-understood command sequences from the Notoriously Reliable Internet more than once?

I applaud you for your honesty, but... Really?

replies(3): >>42729477 #>>42730910 #>>42733834 #
jazzyjackson ◴[16 Jan 25 19:06 UTC] No.42729477[source]▶
Bro, really, self-taught people with a bare minimum understanding of the tools they use are super normal, and when they get into a pit they have to fix it themselves.

Although to your point folks would be better served carefully reading the docs / git book than googling a specific solution to their specific error code.

replies(2): >>42729524 #>>42729562 #
antithesis-nl[dead post] ◴[16 Jan 25 19:10 UTC] No.42729524[source]▶
[flagged]
jazzyjackson ◴[16 Jan 25 19:19 UTC] No.42729641[source]▶
I guess we're coming from different places. In my vernacular, ending a comment with "...really?" is about as casual as calling somebody bro.

It's gender neutral btw.

replies(1): >>42729857 #
1. leptons ◴[16 Jan 25 19:37 UTC] No.42729857[source]▶
"Bro" is the furthest thing from "gender neutral". Not sure how you could think it's gender neutral. It originated from male behavior and is definitely not gender neutral. You can address women as "bro" and they might even respond to you but they'll think you're absolutely weird.
replies(3): >>42729912 #>>42730682 #>>42731634 #
2. jazzyjackson ◴[16 Jan 25 19:41 UTC] No.42729912[source]▶
"bro", "bruh", it's more of an exclamation of surprise than a title conferred to the person being addressed, but even then, I don't know, people call folks "auntie" and "uncle" who aren't actually their auntie and uncle. language is flexible. it may reference the kind of fraternity between brothers but that feeling is not limited to the male sex.
replies(1): >>42730473 #
3. kstrauser ◴[16 Jan 25 20:28 UTC] No.42730473[source]▶
Can confirm. It sounds so weird to me, but I hear my kids and their friends call each other "bro" or "bruh" all the time, regardless of gender.
replies(1): >>42736210 #
4. DangitBobby ◴[16 Jan 25 20:46 UTC] No.42730682[source]▶
No, the female and non-binary people in my life both give and accept "bro" or "bruh" without complaint. I once asked one of my non-binary friends directly how they felt about "bro", "dude", etc and they consider those words to be gender neutral. They are like the word "man" now ("IDK man").
replies(2): >>42731070 #>>42745825 #
5. Terr_ ◴[16 Jan 25 21:21 UTC] No.42731070[source]▶
> They are like the word "man" now ("IDK man").

That's actually how it was originally, because in Old English "man" just meant a gender-neutral "person."

Gendered versions were "wer" and "wif", so you could have a "wer-man" and a "wif-man", the latter changing pronunciation to become "woman". I suppose this also means that there are both "werewolves" and "wifwolves".

6. spokaneplumb ◴[16 Jan 25 22:18 UTC] No.42731634[source]▶
I'm about 95% sure that if I ask my two school-age daughters if it's weird to address girls and women as "bro" or "bruh" in informal circumstances, they'll say no. Since I hear them do it with some regularity.
replies(1): >>42745729 #
7. guenthert ◴[17 Jan 25 10:52 UTC] No.42736210{3}[source]▶
Isn't this like 'guys' including gals a generation earlier?
8. leptons ◴[18 Jan 25 04:04 UTC] No.42745729[source]▶
>> You can address women as "bro" and they might even respond to you but they'll think you're absolutely weird.

>I'm about 95% sure that if I ask my two school-age daughters if it's weird to address girls and women as "bro" or "bruh"

I'm 100% sure I said women, and not "school-age" girls, who if they weren't your daughters would probably describe you as "creep" because that's what teenage girls do. But sure, go ahead and move the goalposts anywhere you want. If citing teenage girls helps you think you're making some kind of point, then the mic is all yours.

replies(1): >>42746283 #
9. leptons ◴[18 Jan 25 04:24 UTC] No.42745825[source]▶
Where did I mention "non-binary people"? I specifically said women. Not a non-woman. Go call an actual Woman a "bro" and see how far you get with her.
10. leptons ◴[18 Jan 25 08:50 UTC] No.42746873{4}[source]▶
Sorry, NO. Women are women, girls are girls, "bros" are "bros", and trolls are trolls. I know which one you are.