In all seriousness though.....

When someone mentions CVS
i1188.photobucket.com

i.imgur.com

cvs is for old guys with beards, git is for glorious young handsome geniuses

i.imgur.com

You git yahoos with your fancy gifs

>bringing a png to a gif fight
i.imgur.com

GENTLEMEN GENTLEMEN. Let's not get carried away into gifdom here.

There's a place and a time for that and it's called
branch.com

My question is: can you force push and eff yourself so hard you cry (see Emmett) in CVS too?

With great power comes great responsibility... And I like having that power.

i don't know cvs but I do know that every time i've *ever* used push -f the results have been negative in some way. i guess i'm really not sure why git doesn't disallow this on projects with multiple committers

CVS doesn't need a force push to eff yourself, that's one of its big features. Maximage effage, uncomplicated interface.

I've used force push because to stop our artist from continuously uploading the same old version of a networking library that I'm trying to delete from the repo.

@Emmett once you see firsthand a beautiful rebase -i origin/master; git push origin new_pretty_branch -f, you'll understand.

It is scary sometimes though. Once Tal git push -f'd ALL THE BRANCHES AT BRANCH

*queue 15 minutes of everyone freaking out and figuring out who had local copies of everything*

I hear tales, legends really, whispered among the devs, that one who knows the true power of git reflog can salvage such disasters with a few deft strokes.... legends... surely.

Reflog . . . that's black magic!

Do you guys generally prefer rebasing over a plain merge?

On rebasing: Ideally, all work is done on a feature banch, with frequent commits (git-add -i is terrific, though it's not appropriate for all projects). These commits are rebased interactively (git-rebase -i HEAD~<N> | number of divergent commits) so that each chunk represents a sensible unit (cleanup commits are removed, but separate milestones are kept as separate commits).

Then, when rebasing, you get the benefit of a meaningful git log, with no clutter, and no uninformative 'merge FOO' commit messages.

There are a few caveats (eg git bisect), but they can be addressed if you're smart about interactive rebasing. And if you want to 'backup' the branch, use git-tag for that (that's essentially what the default. soft tag does, really).

I do merge --squash from the master branch to save myself the trouble of rebase -i, though they're functionally equivalent.

Interactive rebase is nice since you can reorganize your commits into some form that makes sense; being able to do so removes the need to worry about it while you're busy writing code.

I keep wanting to say that there are some cases in which a branch isn't necessary, but the more I think about it the less I'm able to form a convincing argument for it. I usually only use branches for biggish features that have the potential to alter a lot of existing code, but come to think of it, there seems to be no good reason to avoid them.

yeah, what's the cost of adding a branch? zero.

oh em gee guys. I just learned about git revert <sha>

Reverse any commit EVER. Even merges!
mfw

you mean you didn't know!?!

this is now a git-fu thread

git stash / git stash pop for great justice

git stash branch <branchname> opens a new branch and tries to apply your stash to it

How about git-submodule?

Thinking about playing with it for binaries (Maya files, audio assets, scene files etc.). Keep these in a separate repo and you can separate code vs asset pushes. Continually being bit in the ass by Unity's metadata.

Idea from SO: stackoverflow.com

tig -- never git log again (from Matt Dannenburg)

From my experience, git isn't the best tool for dealing with binary files.

On another note, git flow is pretty awesome for git workflows. Definitely worth checking out.

Anyone know about git bisect? Some kind of magic that lets you pinpoint which commit effed your stuff up. I've only heard stories though.

The tales you've heard are true my enlightened friend. git-bisect allows you to fix all kinds of errors made by you or your brothers in arms. It is best used to find how long you've had a bug and where it was first introduced.

True sorcery though comes from mastery of git reflog. BEWARE initiates, reflog is not for the faint of keystroke. reflog is a darker magic that can overtake you should you not be strong in your commits. This darkness has it's rewards. Have you never sent a change to the depths of despair -- never to be recovered -- with a git reset --hard? Then rejoice my brothers and sisters because git reflog will give your changes new life!

s/it's/its + other grammar/spelling fail. Couldn't figure out how to edit ma branch.

you can recover something lost by git reset --hard?!?!
imgur.com

Yeah, but it doesn't work with Bumblebee, so you've got to uninstall it first.

If you really don'y want to commit then you can use git stash and apply the results afterwards. Temp comit ftw!