I'm pretty happy now, with one system less to manage (although I don't want to discourage anyone to have a look at Kallithea - maybe it suits your needs!)
Aha, '--bare': what does that do? I always just type 'git init'.
Let me do a little git bashing, OK? Sorry for this, but it so nicely documents my initial problems with git when I started a few years back. And it still occasionally (like right now) makes me shake my head in disbelief:
> man git-init
Searching for --bare gives me:
> --bare
> Create a bare repository. ...and how GIT_DIR is set...
You don't say!!
I search for other occurrences of 'bare' in that man page, but after skipping those in the synopsis and the help text, it says:
> Pattern not found
So bare = bare. Tautological documentation. It's all obvious, right?
What --bare really does is to put what git would normally put into the '.git' subdir into '.'. I tried what it does, that's how I found out.
Git is great, but please never claim that it is intuitively documented.
That said I concur and don’t think anyone would make such a claim about git documentation.
If all else fails, try https://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/ :)
A bare repo has only Git's own data structure files. It's basically the contents of a non-bare repo's ".git/" directory, without a checked out working copy of all the files that are contained in the repo. The files are all still there but stored inside Git's database and not in the filesystem in the normal way.
The advantage: you can push commits to a bare repo. It's the kind of repo you'd put on your remote dev server. If you try to push to a non-bare repo, you'd get an error message like:
remote: error: refusing to update checked out branch: refs/heads/dev
remote: error: By default, updating the current branch in a non-bare repository
remote: is denied, because it will make the index and work tree inconsistent
remote: with what you pushed, and will require 'git reset --hard' to match
remote: the work tree to HEAD.
So here's the even shorter answer:
Make a bare repo when you only want to push to it but not work inside it, say because you're making a shared repo for you and your friends to work on together.
Make a non-bare repo when you want to work inside it but not push to it, say because it's a project you're developing on your laptop.
A bare git repo is a server side git repo while non-bare is client side.
Git has an extremely complex data structure/state: It's a forest of DAGs (commits in distributed repos), with labels on them (branches), that have specified relationships (remotes), as well as an index and a stash per DAG. All of this on top of the working directory (and .gitignore if you want).
Of course these individual elements are mostly necessary to enable complex workflows. But simple workflows interact with all of these elements too in complex ways. This complexity is neither hidden behind a sensible set of UX abstractions, nor are they cleanly exposed to the user with a set of clean elementary operations to work on them...
The main difference, I think, is that mercurial has stronger opinions on how you should manage your repository and hides everything that doesn't fit its views behind extensions.
Really, I don't understand how git managed to become so popular. It is really good and I like it a lot but it really takes time getting used to. I screwed up a lot before getting competent with it, and I still screw up from time to time. It didn't happen with cvs, svn and mercurial.
It makes me think of Perl. Powerful and messy, I like if for the same reason I like git. But while Perl is on the way down, progressively replaced by cleaner, more opinionated alternatives, git is becoming a de-facto standard.
In addition to that, I suspect it was the very fact that Mercurial had more features, specifically an in built web server that allowed you to easily share your repo, led to GitHub being created with git and not mercurial.
The way I look at it, Mercurial made it extremely easy to self host a repo. So there was no need for a 3rd party centralized service to share your mercurial repo. That wasn’t the case for git, so something like GitHub was needed.
But the centralization in GitHub also allowed them to add more social features, which allowed git to spread more widely.
> GIT_DIR
> If the GIT_DIR environment variable is set then it specifies a path to use instead of the default .git for the base of the repository. The --git-dir command-line option also sets this value.
That said, manuals are typically written like this, meaning that for terms one isn't already aware of, there is a need to search through the index to find its meaning and them piece together the information.
I'm confused on what you find confusing here?
Ok, so can you tell me what is a tiramisu repository?
Googling for the definition I find "Bare: without addition; basic and simple."
And yes, I can. A tiramisu repository is a fictional repository that is not at all mentioned the very helpful help section of git init. While completely fabricated, the tiramisu repository is one of the best tasting repositories git can produce.
You could try
> man -K "bare repo"
to search all man pages for that string, and you'll find that
> man git-clone
has the information you are looking for:
"--bare: Make a bare Git repository. That is, instead of creating <directory> and placing the administrative files in <directory>/.git, make the <directory> itself the $GIT_DIR. This obviously implies the -n because there is nowhere to check out the working tree."
If you have Internet connectivity, Google is also an option. Among the first hits should be the book "Pro Git", chapter "4.2 Git on the Server", which begins with a concise explanation what a bare repository is.
Well, yes, that's one of the problems. I am saying the docs are unintuitive, and now you are confirming that.
For 'git init --bare', I look into 'git-init' and search for '--bare'. That's what I do, that's intuitive to me. And that's not where the info is. Is all I am saying.
I've got a personal instance running on openSUSE in a tiny 1 vCPU+1GB RAM VPS, and it works really well. It's fairly lightweight on resources, too (my VPS instance rarely sees significant load).
[2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pagure
[3]: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory/pag...
I didn't know that mercurial had a web interface, I'll certainly take a look this week.
git add --patch [FILE...]
We too just switched to bare repos and haven't really missed much from the SCM frontends.
That's the one example I'm referring to.
Since then, we faced a number of UI bugs that we just didn't bother to report since most other attempts at reaching out were rejected as "not our problem".
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/15268
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/14726
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/15315
- https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/14639
We're a volunteer team, so any information you can add to an issue would be greatly appreciated. Even if you're not using Gitea anymore.
Does this extend also to the case of when someone submits a pull request to them, or only for issues that people file?
If the former then it is truly problematic. If the latter they may be simply overworked/overburdened by the volume of issues that are being filed, and could need more people submitting pull requests instead of opening issues.
Although merging and reviewing a pull request can also be quite time-consuming. If you are already overworked, it might add to the problem. I'm happy that none of my open-source projects went through the roof. I won't be able to manage it alone.
The maintainer has responded more recently than the GP's last comment. "ignore" feels like a stretch.
Please stop assuming malice in others. You'll be a happier person.
I've responded to the dev, FWIW.
But for bigger projects I now use github as I missed CI and pull request review flows, even for my own work
A bit off topic - but is that an underlying problem with go-lang projects? I've seen a similar problem when using a couple of other go-lang tools, where the entire CPU hits 100% and locks the machine. Too many channels/threads perhaps?
It doesn't. And it shouldn't.
I don't need code browsing on my SMB repo because, well, I'm the only one working on it. And even if I weren't, it'd be kinda fine anyways. I don't have the extra layer of security, but I don't need that either: I already need credentials to connect to my SMB share.
PRs - well, single project. It's just for me, so merging my own feature branches seems fine.
Issues are indeed an "issue". I simply track them in a markdown file. Whatever floats your boat should be fine, though. Combined, for me personally, it works better than managing a platform I don't really need.
What's that good for?
..which is unfortunate.