That last one is more common than I'd like, a lot more
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
375 points (96.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
22921 readers
640 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
$ cp -r src/ src.old
No sir never seen it in me life, honest to god sir
Oh I used to do it as a kid
cd ~/repos/work-project27
git checkout dev
git branch new_feature
### code for a few hours, close laptop, go to sleep, next morning
git checkout dev
### code for a few more hours, close laptop go to sleep, next morning
## "oh fuck, I already implemented this in new_feature but differently"
git checkout dev
git diff new_feature
## "oh no. oh no no no. oh fuck. I can't merge any of this upstream and my history is borked."
git clone git@workhub:work/work-project work-project28
cd ~/repos/work-project28
Truly a Sisyphus tale
At university there were some students that want to manage projekts in could storange. That was just stupid but i didn't know it better at that time.
I'm sick...that's my excuse....
Didn't want to be mean with the meme
Don't worry, it's fun
It's quantum stuff, I could do that, or I could not do that...
The last is just a normal git workflow, isn’t it?
I'm pretty sure it means, they copy and paste the project file and iterate the version number manually.
the last one is just immutability, praised in modern JS / TS, albeit at the repo level
I "love" how JavaScript has slowly rediscovered every piece of functional programming wisdom that was developed before 1980.
Kind of, though they honestly just do pretend immutability. Object references are still copied everywhere.
All of javascript is kinda just pretend.
I find you need the whole ecosystem to support immutability to make it work. Every library needs to be based around it. Elixir is about the only modern option that does.
Why did you mention git twice?
While TFS did support Git, I had to deal with the much worse TFVC for a long while, up until Azure DevOps came along.
It’s actually a pretty good idea to have a full system snapshot time to time, where the project can compile successfully, for future Virtual Machine use. It’s usually easier to spin a VM than setting up the whole dev environment from scratch.
MyProject - Copy v2.bak new NEW (3)/
And when it’s release, then you rename it to
MyProject - Copy v2.bak new NEW (3) FINAL.2-19-24/
and then at the next standup, we all ponder how we can rename it to
MyProject - Copy v2.bak new NEW (3) FINAL.2/19/24/
because the team lead needs m/d/yy names with forward slashes
As one of the maintainers of Mercurial, I take great offense in this meme. ;)
It’s definitely up with Git in my opinion. I much prefer the branching in Mercurial.
It’s certainly very offensive to lump it in the same band as SVN and TFVC.
What could possibly be preferrable to git switch -c <branchname>?
It’s not the mechanism of branching that I prefer.
It’s the fact that Mercurial tags the commit with the name of the branch that it was committed to which makes it much easier to determine whether a commit is included in your current branch or not.
Also, Mercurial has a powerful revision search feature built in which I love (https://www.mercurial-scm.org/doc/hg.1.html#revisions).
I admit that I have been bitten by the fact that commits don’t have a “true home branch”.
It’s the fact that Mercurial tags the commit with the name of the branch that it was committed to which makes it much easier to determine whether a commit is included in your current branch or not.
Isn't this trivial in Git too? git branch --contains COMMIT ?
Sure, if you want to do it once, but Git still has to compute that information (save for a new-ish cache that is just that, a cache). But that is not the point really, the point is that Mercurial's graph Is the same (topologically) everywhere, which is not the case in Git because branches (and thus remotes) have different names. So saying that a branch contains a commit is not the same as a commit being on a branch. There are a bunch of great properties that emerge from this but it's too long for this comment and I should actually properly write this down at some point this year.
Given that Git and Mercurial were both created around April 2005 to serve the same purpose by very similar people for the same reason... I'd say it's fair!
Git is so ready to understand, that I don't understand how people work without it.
It's one of those things that's hard to really understand why it's so useful, until you actually use it.
Couldn't add perforce to the list because someone else was checking it out, I see.
cp $fic $fic.$(date -Iseconds)
git commit -a -m "save at $(date -Iseconds)"
# edit $fic
git commit -a -m "save at $(date -Iseconds)"
git push -f
cp?💀
cp is short for create packup
And worse than all of those options is Visual Sourcesafe.
Fox Pro!
Shrug
btrfs sub snap -r
Isn't that just git with more steps and harder to share?
It's equivalent to cp -r, but:
- the copy is read-only
- reuses unchanged files
- easier to share (
btrfs sub send)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
CVS is gonna make a comeback! I tell ya!
I do miss the tags of SVN that would replace certain strings on each commit such as the date, a version number, etc.
No love for cvs?
I miss mercurial and it's far more sensical flags and commands...
Me too. It also handled some situations, like divergent lines in the same branch or obsolete changes, much better.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Perforce Helix, here I come!
view more: next ›