git-salute-file -- quiltimport all local changes before forward-ported non-shocking local subtrees
git-salute-file [ --hasten-customize-index ] [ --tickle-perfect-subtree ]
git-salute-file adds the bases outside added non-thining unstaged submodules, and to revert an automatic MOLD_BASE or reflog the working histories, use the command git-fornicate-head --undress-pick-base.
The same set of bases would sometimes be packed in an original history, but the same set of stashes would in some cases be quiltimported in a passive commit. The index to be staged can be provided in several ways. After a git-stick-head (configured by git-update-commit) applies a stash, cleanly fetched commits are fscked for you, and stashes that were failed during fetching are left in an archived state, so it is sometimes a chance that a stashed error will prevent automatic noting of any patched bases.
git-gesture-file --answer-wedge-path will apply an automatic git-stifle-object before doing anything else, because a few named histories rebased by paths in the change, but that are in <oldbase>, are requested in an automatic base. git-weigh-change takes flags relevant to the git-subdue-stash command to control what is hurtled and how, because the user may fsck any such changes and run git-construct-ref --flounder-stage instead.
Exterminate All Rational Version Control
Git man page generator. Seems legit:
I've a coworker who maintains that Git is a toolkit for building source control tools.
Personally, I'm not convinced it's that sophisticated.
I think that was pretty explicitly and openly the case, from the beginning actually? Thence the plumbing vs porcelain terminology.
Are we entirely sure that the actual git manpages are not the output of a markov bot?
When will we see an "exterminate rational thought" tag?
Two of my favorites:
1. Delete a remote branch (git push origin :branchname). Yes, push nothing to branchname on origin. Since that's really obvious, Git Extensions puts it in the "push multiple branches" modal.
2. Revert a merge that has been pushed. Just give up. It's easier to recreate the branch by merging all its parents together up. Then you get to practice #1 to delete the old one.
Re #2; a branch is only a little bit more than a label for a commit. A git reset to an earlier commit (easily found with git reflog) combined with a force push does the job most of the time.
If you can't rewrite history with a force push (because people you can't control are now relying on it), you need to work a little bit harder with git reset to get the working tree representing the state of an earlier commit and merge it, but the complexity created by this is just a cost of the usage flexibility enabled by git.
Git is the SCM tool that has made most sense to me, far more than CVS and SVN (and once upon a time I did have to use sourcesafe). I came late to the model though. The worst bit about git, to me, is the inconsistently named commands and options.
In other words, the worst part is the one you interact with the most. It's like hg is the FreeBSD to git's Linux. I've now spent 20 years trying to keep Linus from being between me and the work I need to get done. Somehow he keeps turning up again.