#rebase

[average-desk-lamp]

ma'am sorry. your robot girl backed up her memories, hit her head, forgot stuff, and immediately backed up their memories again. the surgeon is helping her git rebase but you should be prepared for the worst (sorting every file manually)

[tess-or-no]

I would be such a good RiverClan cat: I love soft bedding, collecting pretty trinkets, swimming, sunbathing, eating seafood, being the best looking in a room full of people, etc.. I’d fit right in.

[hagbrigade]

i love sushi and creating a new branch bc a rebase fucked my old one

[exeggcute]

okay I knoooooow there are benefits to working in a monorepo or else no one would do it, but. I just had the scariest git moment of my career where I was trying to fix a merge conflict in a PR and rebase wasn't working for some reason so I followed github's little instructions (bad idea) and ended up doing like a merge merge into my feature branch that pulled in changes from basically every folder in our repo. which means literally every single person in our codeowners file got pinged. I'm mortified

[astralidolator]

My play for when Old World comes out is to loudly complain about how it ruined AoS in my area so those old dudes at the game store can see how it feels when I go to play my funny rats

[zevranunderstander]

my thing is kinda. i use coding terminology really confidently without knowing if i can actually use it in the phrases i say. like, i heard all of these phrases secondhand and just interpreted what i think they mean and i will forever wonder if my colleagues know and notice this or if no one really actually knows how to use some of these

[vivektech]

Use Git if: ✅ You need speed and distributed development ✅ You want better branching and merging ✅ You work offline frequently

[vasanthasworld]

Relining And Rebasing Short Essay Question And Answers

[todays-xkcd]

I know having so many base pairs makes rebasing complicated, but you're in Bilateria, so shouldn't you at LEAST be better at using git head?

Lungfish [Explained]

Transcript Under the Cut

[Cueball is standing on the end of a wooden dock looking down at a Lungfish sticking its head out of the water.]

Lungfish: It turns out I've been editing both Copy of Copy of Gene v3(Newest)(2) and Copy of Copy of Gene v3(Final)(2), so now I can't delete either one.Cueball: You have got to stop doing this. Lungfish: It's fine, I'll just buy more storage.

[Caption below comic:] Why Lungfish have such enormous genomes.

[oldschoolfrp]

A Sassanid war elephant by John Blanche, from "Wargaming with Elephants" by Peter Tickler in Miniature Wargames magazine no 8, 1983. Blanche had been converting and painting miniatures and illustrating for Games Workshop since the 1970s but he didn't become their full time art director until after 1986. Eventually his name became synonymous with his grim-dark "Blanchitsu" style.

I have some old 15mm Sassanid Persians and Late Imperial Romans to touch up and rebase, and it's always useful to have clear painting references like this for the more colorful historic armies.

[trollbite]

Happy Orktober everybody! I rebased this 2023 guy on a square and repainted most of the surfaces. I'm very happy with how much I was able to improve him. I made it just in time to submit to the Orktober 2024 competition by Golden Demon Compendium. Head over to the their website (orktober.co.uk) to see all the killer entries, the gallery is amazing!

[aseplant]

I don't know the ontology either (I have only ever heard it referred to as version control) but I do use it a lot, so I can try to help!

Basically, there's a github repo that lives on your account in github's servers (the origin, or the remote copy) and also one that will live in your file system, wherever you are working (the local copy). The local version will have a .git folder in it, which stores all the github-y bits that allow github to work its magic.

Other than that, the local copy is like any other folder on your computer. You can create/modify/delete files. When you've done some work, you'll want to let github know! You will tell github which files you want it to preserve, create a commit (think of this as a save file or a checkpoint), and then push these changes. By push, we mean that you are sending these changes to the origin, so other people/machines can see them when they go to github.com. (You can also pull changes, which is when you take what's on the origin and overwrite your local folder. Pushing and pulling is how you sync local changes and remote changes.)

As for what buttons to press... there's two ways (that I'm aware of, though I'm sure there's more): you can do this with the command line (I believe most system's built-in command lines should do just fine if you have git installed, but you can also get git bash if you'd like) or via the desktop app (Github Desktop??? Something like that.) I think Github Desktop is more intuitive but less versatile, so I prefer the command line, but it's personal preference really. Online guides will probably help you more at this point.

Can someone explain to me in like five seconds how to use git, assuming that I know basic shit about coding/command line/whatever but don't know any of the specific terminology related to git. Like every tutorial online is at the same time both over my head and also vastly too basic. Just like. Tell me what it is.

Uh. First tell me its ontology. Is it a program, a standard, a language...? I know that it's for version control. Suppose I wanted to do version control at a piece of code. What do I do. What buttons do I press, on my computer? Tell me these things.

[la-chacha-gris]

Everything can be called pornography: problems of definition. S2-02

Pornography is the theater of carnality in which the limits of what is permissible are tested, better than in any other forum. Pornography could be defined as the expression of sex for sex's sake without pretext or justification, in which sex is so prevalent that we can forget the theme, the context, the subplots, and every detail of the story. Pornography is the genre that, in theory, seeks the total abolition of sexual mystery, or at least it allows us to separate it from its moral, social, legal, or religious context.

Photo via @dark--khaos

Todo puede ser llamado pornografía: problemas de definición. T2-02

La pornografía es el teatro de la carnalidad en el que se ponen a prueba, mejor que en ningún otro foro, los límites de lo permisible. La pornografía podría ser definida como la expresión del sexo por el sexo mismo sin pretextos ni justificaciones, en la que el sexo tiene tal predominancia que podemos olvidar el tema, el contexto, las subtramas y todo detalle de la historia. La pornografía es el género que en teoría busca la abolición total del misterio sexual o, por lo menos, es el que permite desprenderlo de su contexto moral, social, legal o religioso.

Pornography can be a faithful, detailed illustration, ready to be used and reproduced, like a cooking recipe. It is also the category that brings together and interweaves elements of sexuality, submission, domination, passion, and pain. Pornography has been defined by the tug-of-war between two opposing forces: on the one hand, the struggle between religious figures, conservatives, political authorities, and, more recently, pro-censorship feminist groups, who want to regulate what can be represented and prohibit anything that goes beyond its limits; and on the other, the irrepressible desire of creators and consumers to create.

La pornografía puede ser la ilustración fidedigna, detallada, lista para ser usada y reproducida, como si fuera una receta de cocina. Asimismo, es la categoría que reúne y entreteje elementos de sexualidad, sumisión, dominio, pasión y dolor. La pornografía se ha definido gracias al estira y afloja de dos fuerzas antagónicas: por un lado la lucha de los religiosos, los conservadores, las autoridades políticas y más recientemente grupos de feministas procensura, que quieren regular lo representable y prohibir aquello que rebase sus límites; y por otro el deseo irrefrenable de los autores y los consumidores de crear.

Pornography is a label applied to an immense variety of objects and representations, regardless of their nature or the effect they may produce on a hypothetical audience. Hence, pornography is considered not for what it is but for what it causes. In fact, we can say that there is no neutral definition of pornography, and any reflection or discussion about it inevitably focuses on whether or not it should be tolerated.

La pornografía es una etiqueta que se aplica a una variedad inmensa de objetos y representaciones, sin importar tanto su naturaleza como el efecto que puedan producir en un público hipotético. De ahí que la pornografía sea considerada no por lo que es sino por lo que causa. De hecho podemos decir que no hay una definición neutra de la pornografía y toda reflexión o discusión sobre ella inevitablemente se centra en si debe o no ser tolerada.

Anything can be called pornographic, both those objects created with the deliberate intention of producing erotic stimuli, and others that can simply be adopted and reconfigured in the imagination to have the same effect. But at the same time, nothing is pornographic until someone acting as a censor determines it as such. Pornography is, therefore, extremely complex and difficult to define. However, there is no doubt that it involves a wide range of expressions capable of producing pleasure almost instantly and in enormous quantities.

Todo puede ser llamado pornográfico, tanto aquellos objetos creados con la intención deliberada de producir estímulos eróticos, como otros que simplemente pueden ser adoptados y reconfigurados en la imaginación para tener el mismo efecto. Pero a la vez nada es pornográfico sino hasta que alguien en el papel de censor lo determina como tal. La pornografía es, por lo tanto, extremadamente compleja y difícil de definir. No obstante, no hay duda de que se trata de un amplio rango de expresiones capaces de producir placer casi instantáneamente y en enormes cantidades.

In the second installment of this second season (hence the title "S2" and the "Chapter 02"), we return to the problem of defining what pornography is, because it doesn't depend so much on exciting the senses or on how explicit it is (art often does that) as on whether the work is branded as bad and condemnable, even legally censurable, with the excuse of emptiness—artistic or intellectual—or sin, depending on the era and society judging it.

The idea to recover and translate this fragment by Naief Yehya came to me yesterday from THIS ask (which is why your feedback is important).

En la segunda entrega de esta segunda temporada (por eso T2ª poner y lo de capítulo 02) volvemos con el problema de definición de lo que es pornografía porque no depende tanto de excitar los sentidos o de lo explícito que muestre (eso ya lo hace el arte muchas veces) como que sea tildada la obra de mala y condenable, incluso censurable legalmente, con la excusa de vacuidad -artística o intelectual- o pecado dependiendo de la época y sociedad que juzga.

La idea para recuperar y traducir este fragmento de Naief Yehya me la da ayer ESTE ask (por eso vuestro feedback es importante)

[serinemisc]

So I came across this recently.

It's funny, because I think I exactly half agree with it. I do rebase-heavy workflows in Git mostly because every single Git client makes merge-based workflows ugly and hard to use. If GitHub simply displayed merges the way it displayed squash-merges, that would eliminate so much of the need for squash-merges.

But I don't think this covers everything. So let me go through every use-case for rebase separately:

git merge --squash

The squash-merge is one of the most popular ways to merge pull requests on GitHub, and it's an abject failure of the Git ecosystem that it's so popular.

When you do a regular merge on a pull request, you are essentially taking a bundle of commits from somewhere else, and putting it on top of your own main branch. It's an extremely linear thing to do.

But if you do that, GitHub's commit log just gets a bunch of commits interspersed throughout, with zero indication where they're from. And the nicer clients, if they do, visualize it as a tree (pronounced "DAG") (pronounced "a huge tangle of curvy lines"):

This pic is from an article telling you to rebase, and, like, sure, rebasing sure is one way to work around a UI that displays your merges as a huge tangle. But Fossil makes a really good point. Why not instead display your merges as, like, not a huge tangle? git log --first-parent does this (and that's clearly an option in that Git UI), but it should be the default everywhere. And even when expanding the "bundle", the bundled commits should still be grouped together, not interspersed with other commits at essentially random.

The other issue is that, when showing the "tangle of commits", the reason it's so tangled is because it's showing the commits in chronological order of when the commits were made. Which is a completely useless sort order, compared to, say, chronological order of when they arrived in the current branch (i.e. grouping the merged-in commits together). This is why GitHub's rebase-merge is also such a popular alternative to merges.

git pull --rebase

Okay, so. Now you've fixed commit log visualization of merged pull requests. But that's not the only use of rebase! Here's another one: if you're working on some code, and constantly keeping it synced with remote, you'll generate tons of merges that are complete useless noise. Unlike a merged PR, these should ideally be hidden completely, or at least nearly-completely.

Anti-rebase people say that these merges serve the functionality of, like, preserving history. You made one commit when the remote was in this state, and another commit when the remote was in that state, and this is sometimes important history to preserve.

I think they are way overestimating how important that history is (judging by how many people use pull-rebase). I'm fine preserving that history if you can declutter the UIs, but it does require your UI to be able to distinguish between "important" merges (of new features from feature branches) and "unimportant" merges (keeping branches in sync with remotes).

The linked post doesn't talk about this problem at all, so I don't know how well Fossil handles this.

git commit --fixup

That leaves the amend/fixup commit. The link does mention that Fossil supports editing past metadata (e.g. commit message). But sometimes you want to edit the actual changes of a commit.

Now, for a sufficiently published commit, this is a bad idea. But if you have a habit of "commit early, commit often", having 50 bugfix commits makes a commit log really cluttered.

I frequently, like, have to weigh stuff like "is it worth cluttering the commit log to fix one typo in one comment?" for old code. And it would really suck to also have to do that for unpublished code, instead of going in with my trusty rebase scalpel.

git that's all I wanted to say

In conclusion. git rebase is a solution to a number of things that could also be viewed as UI problems, and fixed in other, better ways, and Fossil sure sounds like it's fixed some of them. But some of those UI problems are legitimately hard, and I'm not convinced Fossil fixes all of them, and GitHub extremely has not, so I'm gonna keep rebasing.

[clearlightwired]

i finished almost nowhere by @nostalgebraist!

i think i heard someone at some point describe this as "puzzle box literature" and that is probably the most accurate descriptor. rotating this book in my mind was intensely pleasing. you don't usually encounter sci-fi with fully-explained science that feels like a real thing that exists; not shying away at all from explaining how things actually work is one of the things i enjoy/respect most about what nostalgebraist did in this book, because the explanation was certainly no easy task (and the fact that it came out both understandable to me and in a way that caused me to want to learn more about actual physics is big).

the same things that make AN less approachable are also what make it an intensely rewarding experience imo... it's long and complex and easy to lose track of. but if you like understanding things then it is the perfect challenge. i am very glad it's as long as it is, both because i'm not sure you could fit what needed to be told in any shorter of a book and also because it was so enjoyable to read that i did not want it to end. nothing feels like it is in excess, though everything has the wonderful depth of things that could easily fill three such books, if you really looked into them

the multi-format nature of AN is one of the strong points. it is at times a physics lecture, a play, an annotated manuscript, a console log, etc. and all of these really work for it and are deployed in ways that make the reading experience better

(spoilers/specifics, if you have not read almost nowhere go read it now!!! please it's so good!)

i don't know yet, how i feel about the ending. it's almost simple, compared to the rest of the book, and not really precedented by anything that happens up to that point, though i think it ends up working well. i'll have to let that part sit for a while

i adored the characters in this book. i would be hard pressed to pick a favorite. it might be grant, or grant and azad together; what little information we get about what the mooncrash was like, in both the rebased and original version, has some certain quality to it that tugs at my heart. though watching the divergence of the annes and all the people they become is up there too. and of course the glimpses we get into what it feels like for the vances, knowing they are fictional... seeing into what it was like for hector in the crash with his anime figurines and video games... suffice it to say that all the characters are dimensional and the crashes give a lot of insight into them across situations. this is probably one of my favorite parts

this book is also just really funny. the types of people described on stein's rock and their customs. moon's whole deal. the descriptions of sylvie's halo and what it does. grant's continued role as "guy who sits, confused, while people tell him incomprehensible things". it makes the whole story flow

i have a lot of questions, still, but mostly ones that are at their core "i wish there was even more of this great book": e.g. how and why did sylvie make the transition from "grant's dog" to "sylvie"? (maybe this is answered somewhere and i missed it.) i typed out a long list of questions after that one but am realizing that a lot of them are just that this book is very complex and maybe much would become clear if i reread it in the future -- the prompt to reread chapter 15 towards the end of the book surprised me with how much more understandable it was the second time around, and probably lots of other parts would be similar now that i've seen the story from above.

this is a really great book. i will maybe write more at some point but for now i want to think on it. and then maybe read everything else nostalgebraist has ever written

[debaucheruby]

Rebased my husband's Michael design! @holydust-conniseur I'm literally in love with his Michael This Is Not A Joke I need him carnally.

Plus a Lucifer redesign/his pre-fall form for a roleplay!

Also did a Gabriel design for myself :]

I have some more designs I gotta finish, including some commissions, but in the meantime you guys can enjoy these!