←back to thread

Oh Shit, Git?

(ohshitgit.com)
464 points Anon84 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
antithesis-nl ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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] ◴[] No.42729524[source]
[flagged]
jazzyjackson ◴[] 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 #
leptons ◴[] 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 #
spokaneplumb ◴[] 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 #
leptons ◴[] 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 #
1. leptons ◴[] No.42746873[source]
Sorry, NO. Women are women, girls are girls, "bros" are "bros", and trolls are trolls. I know which one you are.