> I always use VS Code for this step. Its merge conflict UI is the clearest I’ve found: it shows “Accept Current Change,” “Accept Incoming Change,” “Accept Both Changes,” and “Compare Changes” buttons right above each conflict.
I still get confused by vscode’s changing the terms used by Git. «Current» vs «incoming» are not clear, and can be understood to mean two different things.
- Is “current” what is on the branch I am rebasing on? Or is it my code? (It’s my code)
- Is “incoming” the code I’m adding to the repo? Or is it what i am rebasing on to? (Again, the latter is correct)
I find that many tools are trying to make Git easier to understand, but changing the terms is not so helpful. Since different tools seldom change to the same words, it just clutters any attempts to search for coherent information.
Git's "ours"/"theirs" terminology is often confusing to newcomers, especially when from a certain (incorrect, but fairly common) point of view their meaning may appear to be swapped between merge and rebase. I think in an attempt to make the terminology less confusing UIs tend to reinvent it, but they always fail miserably, ending up with the same problem, just with slightly different words.
This constant reinvention makes the situation even worse, because now the terminology is not only confusing, but also inconsistent across different tools.
We use SVN at work and it's a nightmare there too, "mine" and "theirs" and whatnot. I frequently end up looking at historical versions just to verify which is which.
If I have a merge conflict I typically have to be very conscious about what was done in both versions, to make sure the combination works.
I wish for "working copy" and "from commit 1234 (branch xyz)" or something informative, rather than confusing catch-all terms.
Using SmartSVN which makes life a fair bit better but still keeps this confusing terminology.
We'll be migrating to Git this year though so.
For reference, the codebase is over 20 years old, and includes binary dependencies like libraries. Makes it easy to compile old versions when needed, not so easy on the repository size...
I think even presenting them as options makes it even more confusing to newcomers. Usually I find that neither is correct and there's a change on both sides I need to manually merge (so I don't even pay attention to the terminology), but I've seen co-workers just blindly choose their changes because it's familiar looking then get confused when it doesn't work right.
For merges current is the branch you are on, for rebases it helps to see them as a serie of cherry picks, so current would be the branch you would be on while doing the cherry pick equivalent to this step of the rebase.
Serious answer to an unserious question: probably not!
If you're travelling between stars, you do actually need star trek sci-fi shields. The relative velocity turns interstellar dust into bullets that would obliterate an unshielded ship. Assuming those shields can operate in proximity to a planet, they could simply shove their way through the debris cloud.
Alternately, an interstellar ship probably has a lot of power to throw around and likely a lot of time they're willing to spend. It's not unreasonable to think that a starship would be equipped to deal with some amount of orbital debris. Probably point defense lasers or something. Maybe a tractor beam.
> As implemented, you’ll now need to implement a ton of custom logic for the necessary data transforms. With Postgres, there’s a really good chance you could do all of that by manipulating the backups with a few lines of SQL.
Isn’t writing «a few Lines of SQL» also custom logic? The difference is just the language.
It is also possible that the custom data store is more easily manipulated with other languages than SQL.
SQL really is great for manipulating data, but not all relational databases are easy to work with.
DST is the dumbest thing ever and especially now with global warming. IF you want to move the clock in summer to make things more convenient, move it back an hour, not forwards.
Due to DST we have less time to spend outside in the evenings. The sun stays out much longer, especially here in the more northern part of Europe. With DST, once you get off work it's simply too hot in the direct sunlight to be outside comfortably.
It only gets comfortable outside around 10 in the evening, at which point it's almost time to go to bed. By moving the clock backwards instead of forwards you get 2 additional hours of outside time. Another advantage is that you have a more time for your bedroom to cool down a little before going to sleep.
I'm not a "capitalism gives you brain worms" kind of person, but the idea that we should literally change the location of the sun in the sky because that's what's most convenient and the hours of work are sacrosanct is always the weirdest take to me.
Why go through all this farrago? There's only one time that really means anything, so have noon at noon (modulo your time zone) and then live your life the way you want.
Why do you think "noon being at noon" is sacrosanct though? Urban life is not centered at 12:00 any more, you are way more likely to be awake at 8 pm than at 4 am.
"8PM", like most timekeeping, is a human invention devoid of intrinsic meaning. Noon is the only time that means anything in relation to the world: it's when the sun is directly overhead*. Analog clocks are tiny mechanical sundials for a reason. Have noon (the time) at noon (when the sun is overhead). All else is details.
* - yeah, yeah, in the middle of a timezone, you're very clever if you thought this was a gotcha
>DST has caused my team our fair share of headaches and troubles…
I hate to break the news to you, but "NASA wants to come up with a new clock for the moon, where seconds tick away faster"
So your team will leap away from those DST headaches into transcoded seconds headaches. Now incorporate negative leap seconds into this time correction soup and everything will be just fine.
From that post:
As NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker has said, “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.”
I still get confused by vscode’s changing the terms used by Git. «Current» vs «incoming» are not clear, and can be understood to mean two different things.
- Is “current” what is on the branch I am rebasing on? Or is it my code? (It’s my code)
- Is “incoming” the code I’m adding to the repo? Or is it what i am rebasing on to? (Again, the latter is correct)
I find that many tools are trying to make Git easier to understand, but changing the terms is not so helpful. Since different tools seldom change to the same words, it just clutters any attempts to search for coherent information.