<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Seven steps &#187; git</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trevoke.net/blog/tag/git/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trevoke.net/blog</link>
	<description>Martial arts and technology, $DEITY what a mix!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:32:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>git usage conventions</title>
		<link>http://trevoke.net/blog/2011/08/30/git-usage-conventions/</link>
		<comments>http://trevoke.net/blog/2011/08/30/git-usage-conventions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Trevoke</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[git]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trevoke.net/blog/?p=292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve been using git at work for a greenfield project and, so far, this has worked for us. It could be a useful template to get another team started. We have gotten rid of the name &#8216;master&#8217;, which is only a convention anyway, and instead are using a few permanent branches: production (only stable code <a href='http://trevoke.net/blog/2011/08/30/git-usage-conventions/' class='excerpt-more'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve been using git at work for a greenfield project and, so far, this has worked for us. It could be a useful template to get another team started.<br />
We have gotten rid of the name &#8216;master&#8217;, which is only a convention anyway, and instead are using a few permanent branches:</p>
<ul>
<li>production (only stable code which gets deployed to production goes there. The only branch to be merged in, EVER, is &#8216;stable&#8217;)</li>
<li>stable (only stable code which goes to the staging environment goes there. The only branch to be merged in, EVER, is &#8216;integration&#8217;))</li>
<li>integration (code from other branches goes here &#8211; tests should, of course, pass before merging in.)</li>
</ul>
<p>And then we have, of course, other branches for work in progress and other stuff. we&#8217;ve used these prefixes to help with the naming, and called this the &#8216;buffers&#8217; convention (look at the first letters &#8211; BFRS):</p>
<ul>
<li>bug_</li>
<li>feature_</li>
<li>refactor_</li>
<li>spike_</li>
</ul>
<div>How have you organized your git repositories?</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://trevoke.net/blog/2011/08/30/git-usage-conventions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Github&#8217;s customer service: bad review</title>
		<link>http://trevoke.net/blog/2010/03/12/githubs-customer-service-bad-review/</link>
		<comments>http://trevoke.net/blog/2010/03/12/githubs-customer-service-bad-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:39:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Trevoke</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customer service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[git]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[github]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trevoke.net/blog/?p=224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I will readily admit that I don&#8217;t know all that much about Github or Git for that matter. I use them, they&#8217;re handy, and that&#8217;s where it stops. I read about a git feature called &#8220;smart HTTP&#8221;, which would allow to communicate both ways with git (push and pull) with HTTP or HTTPS. So, I <a href='http://trevoke.net/blog/2010/03/12/githubs-customer-service-bad-review/' class='excerpt-more'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will readily admit that I don&#8217;t know all that much about Github or Git for that matter. I use them, they&#8217;re handy, and that&#8217;s where it stops. I read about a git feature called &#8220;smart HTTP&#8221;, which would allow to communicate both ways with git (push and pull) with HTTP or HTTPS. So, I asked Github about it &#8211; it would be nice for them to have this feature, because I currently can&#8217;t push to Github from work. Here&#8217;s how the exchange went.<br />
(this first message is from memory, as I used the web interface, so I don&#8217;t have a copy of it)<br />
<strong>Me:</strong> <em><br />
Hi, I just read about this: http://progit.org/2010/03/04/smart-http.html and I would like to know when Github plans on implementing this, because it would be very useful.<br />
_______<br />
<strong>From: Tekkub (Support staff)<br />
Subject: [Contact] Upgrading git to support smart HTTP ?</strong></em></p>
<p>You do know that Scott (the guy who wrote Pro Git) works for us, right?  We&#8217;re well<br />
aware of smart http&#8230;<em><br />
_______<br />
</em><em>I tried to make light of the condescending tone and sent the following reply:</em><br />
<strong>Me: </strong><br />
Nope.. Had no idea.<br />
So when will it be implemented? <img src='http://trevoke.net/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
_______<br />
<strong>From: Tekkub (Support staff)<br />
Subject: [Contact] Upgrading git to support smart HTTP ?</strong></p>
<p>It will be implemented when it is&#8230;<br />
_______</p>
<p>That&#8217;s when I just gave up. I don&#8217;t know if whoever handles the messages is paid or not, but I&#8217;m pretty sure Github pays its employees by now. I&#8217;m using a free account, so they wouldn&#8217;t lose anything by me leaving them, and they do provide a great service.<br />
Am I just being picky when I expect the support staff to be polite? I say this as someone who has worked as support staff for over three years: no. The support staff SHOULD, nay, MUST be polite. I don&#8217;t care how flat your company hierarchy is, I don&#8217;t care how young or forward-thinking the company is, and I especially don&#8217;t care if your target audience is Asperger&#8217;s syndrome-suffering programmers who laugh at Star Trek jokes and read slash fiction. You&#8217;re the support, you&#8217;re polite. Especially over a medium like text, where you can&#8217;t easily place a slap on the shoulder, a grin and a wink.</p>
<p>This has left a bad taste in my mouth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://trevoke.net/blog/2010/03/12/githubs-customer-service-bad-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Git : moving a remote branch</title>
		<link>http://trevoke.net/blog/2009/12/29/git-moving-a-remote-branch/</link>
		<comments>http://trevoke.net/blog/2009/12/29/git-moving-a-remote-branch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Trevoke</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[git]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[move]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trevoke.net/blog/?p=204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One can&#8217;t actually move a remote branch, but you can copy a branch and delete a branch, so&#8230; Copy oldbranch in repo to newbranch. Ex: git push origin foobranch:barbranch renames foobranch to barbranch Remove a remote branch: it’s all about the colon: Example: git push origin :heads/some-branch removes some-branch from the remote repo (apparently git <a href='http://trevoke.net/blog/2009/12/29/git-moving-a-remote-branch/' class='excerpt-more'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One can&#8217;t actually move a remote branch, but you can copy a branch and delete a branch, so&#8230;</p>
<p>Copy oldbranch in repo to newbranch.</p>
<pre class="brush: plain; title: ; notranslate">git push {repo} {oldbranch}:heads/{newbranch}</pre>
<p>Ex: git push origin foobranch:barbranch<br />
renames foobranch to barbranch</p>
<p>Remove a remote branch: it’s all about the colon:</p>
<pre class="brush: plain; title: ; notranslate">git push &lt;remote_repo&gt; :heads/&lt;branch&gt;</pre>
<p>Example: git push origin :heads/some-branch removes some-branch from the remote repo (apparently git push origin :some-branch works as well).</p>
<p>This works for removing a tag as well: git push origin :sometag</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://trevoke.net/blog/2009/12/29/git-moving-a-remote-branch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.275 seconds -->

