Am I a certificated geek to understand this joke? :D

Yeah, and he could call it something based on his name… something like Linuz or Linuks or something. 🤔

@@ThotsAndPrayers Lunix would be better. People would find different reasons... One could say Lol Unix 😅

@@DevAmateur the guy is linus trovald and he created a kernel called linux

@@TOn-fx2gr lmao, I said that I understood the joke

If you don't want your coworkers to hate you, then you should just git-blame-someone-else so they'll have that someone else instead

I usually use `git push origin +feature/name` it only push the current working branch which is usually we wants to force change

@@bugs389 pfwl

came here for this, sound advice that more people should know about

We block force on Main for all but a few admins in the rare case a build system breaks underneath us which requires code changes to fix. Everything else requires a PullRequest.

Thanks, I tried to be all smart and use this new -am and now I am surprised to see none of my new files on the online repo...

Usually I favor git add - - update This allows you to only commit changed files added to the repo.

I can confirm this

Yeah, I'm all in for old-school in this aspect. Adding files manually first and committing in a separate command. As stated in the video "sometimes going fast lead to mistakes"

I have an alias set up: gcad=“git add .; git commit -v” Occasionally I’ll end up staging stuff I don’t expect to, but using -v means I usually spot my mistake. VERY occasionally I end up committing something I didn’t mean to, but I’m confident enough with git to edit the commit before the PR gets merged, so for me the trade off is worth it.

git config --global alias.magic '! git add . >/dev/null 2>&1 && git status --porcelain | git commit -F -'

Thank you!

try this one alias lg = log --color --graph --pretty=format:'%Cred%h%Creset -%C(yellow)%d%Creset %s %Cgreen(%cr) %C(bold blue)%Creset' --abbrev-commit

​@@radadadadee Is this the masochist version of "git log --oneline -a --graph"?

omg! that should be the default option for force : D

does that flag have a short version? like how --force is -f?

@@andresreyes8509 no, not as far as I'm aware unfortunately. You can always make an alias if you use it often enough.

cant that just be replaced by a simple git pull and then git push.... ??

lmao that seems kinda useless because --force is usually used to overwrite someone else's code. Otherwise just pull the code and push normally.

Can you make a video on this. I would love to learn from you. Because I am also facing the same issue and cherrypicking is so hard for me to maintain.

Can you please give me some insight on how it works internally please 🙏

That's mostly a sign that git is a leaky abstraction imho

​@@BosonCollideris it an abstraction? To me it's a tool that makes it easier to copy code around and have messages and IDs attached to certain versions of it, instead of having separate folders for working on a new feature or so. There are some abstractions in the naming, yes, but even without all of them it's just a tool to avoid having tons of folders and a spreadsheet to know what's where.

​@@BosonColliderL take

💓

I didn't know about that. I have been stashing my changes my whole life haha Thanks

So would you do. Work on main branch git checkout -b newbranch Then won't it automatically take you to new branch? Then have to go back to switch again? How does it work?

@@voyageruk2002 switch is a replacement for checkout. `git checkout -b` and `git switch -c` work the same. They created switch because checkout does more than just switching branches and now they are trying to make things more specific. To simplify the code base, I guess.

Yup. I use checkout -b Same results.

OMG THAT EXISTS??? WHAT A PAIN I HAD IN THE LAST COUPLE SPRINTS!

Thanks bro

Revert is what you want to use if the commit is already pushed to the remote. Reset is for if you haven't pushed yet.

Yes he mentioned that

He said "without removing the original commit". How else would you "go back to the original state [...] without removing the original commit"? The only way is to create a new commit. So creating a new commit is implied here and you comment is superfluous.

@@Dmitri_Ivanovich by deleting last commit obviously

This is heavily used when your code has tests and automated jobs. If you have Travis or Jenkins that run tests frequently, this feature allows to figure out which commit introduced a bug that it’s causing failures

You can also run it automatically by providing a script with exit vode 0 for success and non-zero exit code for failure and it will mark all your commits good or bad based on that automatically

IKR, so undersubscriber

TBH the voiceover sounds almost like Microsoft Sam. I am wandering whether he automated the voice track by concatenating prerecorded word samples

Nah, the guy is good fr

Nah, the master 'copy' (oxymoron) is on someone else's server (Github?). Git's called a distributed VCS for a reason. As long as you have the same hash, you have the same Mona Lisa! PS the correct historical term should have been a slave copy, based on slave clocks, but folks back then went with the 'master' figure of speech

Apparently, using the word master anywhere in your code or other tools is now considered as a reference to slavery. If you still have a branch in any of your repos called master, then congratulations you are racist. 😂 Welcome to the inclusive and diversified kingdom of Woketopia 😂😂😂

I am always using master even in new projects.

@@Kevin-jc1fx Most folks simply don't know where the usage comes from. There is a distinction between unique masterpieces created by master craftsmen (such as the Mona Lisa), or the original ship's drawing of Titanic, and forced perfect replication, originally conceived to drive slave clocks from a master pendulum. The original reference is discussed in [1] R. Eglash, “Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature,” Technology and Culture, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 360-369, 2007, doi: 10.1353/tech.2007.0066 where the 'master' analogy was used directly to call up the idea of slave copies. Given that perfect replication/copying is the hallmark of software storage, it fits the latter description better than the former. Learning takes time.

@@philipoakley5498 I guess it does not matter, nobody should be force to use "main", master is fine so it make no sens to change it just because someone want to see his ideologie in it

I add -p to stashes often because I’ll change different components in my code and sometimes I need to filter changes out of the same files

I have renamed all my master branches to slave-owner

@@vforsh Based

'goshujin-sama' is where it's at for me

git push senpai --force hmm, i wouldn't wanna forcefully push my senpai

This is the only acceptable alternative to master.

what the hell? i gotta look into this master/main branch rename

No one is forcing you to do anything (hopefully anyway). However, when starting new projects, it really doesn't matter what you name your main branch, so why not go with the least controversial one?

@@ibrahimomer9263 probably because not everyone wants to feel being influenced by snowflakes

​@@ibrahimomer9263 Because at a certain point, you have to say STOP. Otherwise this bullshit will go on until we cannot communicate anymore w/o constant fear of hitting the next trap. In my country, Germany, the language is being completely demolished meanwhile... Think for a minute: Do you really believe the word 'master', especially in the absence of a 'slave' as here with git, did hurt a certain group of people so much, that they gathered together and started lobbying at microsoft, for their just case? So that microsoft bent, because the pressure from that group was so high, that they decided to skip the word master in github's default repo settings? If you believe that, I would like to know who those people were and how they started their campaign for their cause. Face it: That group does not exist. Nobody, not a single person, is *honestly* being insulted by git using the word master for its default branch. Just like not a single woman in Germany is insulted by the word Wissenschaftler (scientiest), which we may not use any more. You will HAVE to realize that this stuff is coming NOT from bottom up. It's coming top down, upon us. Then ask youself why, whats the reason. *Why* is this being pushed top down? Invest half a day - You'll find the answer easily.

@@ibrahimomer9263 Because the whole ‘controversy’ is idiotic.

I just made a personal playlist to just book mark his videos lol Everything is gold in this channel

git cherrypick is an underrated feature of git.

Yeah

`git cherrypick -x` always.

That is good advice, I mention that in the full course.

@@Fireship Glad you liked it! Looking forward to that

Its good practice to make a backup of your current branch and then rebase it with main/yourbranch.. learnt it the hard way

@@buntysingh7315 same

@@Fireship I'm sorry for off-topic, don't know other way to contact... My top-level comment about the long list of Git GUIs seems to disappear, is it caught by youtube's spam filter, by any chance?

there's also a "git checkout -- ." to reverse changes not yet committed if changes are not needed for later, otherwise stash is the way

The same thing works with cd. "cd -" to go back to the previous directory.

I actually find gitkraken confusing, git is more easy to understand.

For me, it was exactly the other way around. I have a feeling that using a UI tool should be allowed only after you understand the git internals. But if you understand those, you won't bother yourself with using a UI tool - plain aliased commands are typically faster to type and execute, and bonus point - you are pretty sure what is going on. While with that that fancy tool you are left at the mercy of its authors.

I use the git graph extension in VSC along with using the built-in git source control viewer that VSC has

I typically use `git checkout -b ` Many ways to git a cat I suppose.

That's a common feature of terminals btw

@@ifelseprog completions are a shell feature, not a terminal feature

@@user-ux2kk5vp7m yes my bad

`git reflog` -- it's like quicksave ;-)

'git add -p [file-name]' 🙂

​@@RaulTavares what does -p do?

​@@sufiserious798The -p option let's you selectively add changes from a file instead of adding the entire file. Can sometimes be useful, i suggest you try it out yourself.

This is the sort of shit I don't learn working as a solo developer man -.-

I'm good, I'd rather neck myself than rename from master to main just to please woke activists. Even if main is default I still rename to master.

Personally, I like to rename new repos back to master just to spite the word Nazis.

I name my master branch fuehrer

I name my branches Toby…..

@@evancombs5159 Wait till they here that every usb stick is a slave.

Actually it's harder to leave keyboard and go to mouse that's it

@@amit-mishra I don't need to leave my keyboard at all to use the UI

Kya 'Chacha' kya chal raha hai ? Tumko college me sab log 'Chacha' 'chacha' kyu bolte the ?

In the main, You gotta be noticed..

autostash sounds really cool! --no-ff i never heard of, good tip as well

@@henriquematias1986 Not fast forwarding is actually a terrible tip. There is nothing worst than a git log full of merge commits, makes it hideous and unreadable. It's a trunk based development anti pattern.

@@jeremyjones4019 good to hear you point of view! i'm sure it's useful somehow for some people tough ( : thanks for bringing this up

I personally only think I really began understanding how git works properly after I started using the console version but that might just be me. I would also have a hard time working without the git-worktree command ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes! Just wanted to second that. Also it has some nice features like adding hunks and partial stashes (for hunks and files). Even though that is possible with some CLI magic too in GitKraken it is way, way easier. For the SSH "I don't have an graphical environment at all" people I can also recommend lazygit, which is a pretty neat TUI for git.

We can use: git switch -c

@@nishanths9652 its switch only right, checkout -b used to create new branch

😂👌

alias bush="push" alias world="origin" alias wide="master " pit bush world wide

git bush did 9/11

because there is always a default branch, and not just a naming convention

@@Terrain2 Git does not have a "default" branch - the first created branch is the default. Github/-lab/Bitbucket added that functionality to their implementation.

but you can rename the first created branch of course - effectively being the default for people cloning the repo.

@@flightvision Oh? really? I mean that does sound completely plausible, but how does git know which branch to actually pull if you clone with no extra parameters?

Dude, Many People around their world had problems with their previous BDSM partners so calling the branch master might be offensive to them.

Agreed

Do not bend a knee to an ideology that tells you 2 + 2 = 5, men can get pregnant, and gender is a social construct. We have to push back against the woke insanity.

Medium: "everyone should use main instead o-" Most Devs: "nah" Devto: "everyone should-" Most Devs: "nah"

@@kavustock 100%. Don't allow your enemies to define the words you use.

Another pointless woke thing then? *sigh* Have they not considered the minority of sexual submissives might prefer the term "Master"? Shame on them.. :-P

@@randomyoutubeuser8509 Weed out the "problematic" ones. It's a solid strat.

Based and redpilled

@@undefinedvariable8085 Exactly, if the word 'master' is too much for someone, we're definitely not gonna be able to work together.

I mean you could say “wow, problematic language exists, let’s fix that quickly and easily so we welcome everyone”, or you could be this guy

Programming 100 seconds :)

I love his speed

That's just _Bleed_ by Meshuggah

Tomorrow's Challenge: create a git shortcut for today's challenge.