The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Back in Denmark there is a much wider "cheese flavor scale" than I have been able to find here in the US. My preference is slightly above the middle (if that makes any sense), but the closest I get to that here is when I occasionally find a good Fontina. Years ago my local grocery store carried a great Spanish cheese that was almost spot on, but they no longer have that available.
It's funny, the grocery stores here in California and Mexico actually have an assortment of Danish cheeses, but it is usually limited to Blue Cheese (which I cannot stand), Fontina, Havarti (that's for kids), Brie, Camembert (eeew) and Feta (for salads).
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
It's difficult to find these days, but I've long enjoyed Win Schulers "Bar Scheese"[^]. My stepdad's father used to send a crock from Chicago a couple times a year, and we scarfed it down in an evening. While the recipe was a family secret, I was able to come close to matching it using very sharp cheddar cheese, port wine, and strong horseradish. I think I still have a couple of the original crocks - they don't offer them anymore, sadly.
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
Whatever your type, just go for a decent quality cheese with real flavour.
I enjoy brie, Cheddar, Wensleydale, Stilton, Shropshire blue and Green (or Blue*) Wensleydale as my 'standard' selection of cheeses. A good goat's cheese also takes some beating but that's fantastically expensive so I don't typically buy it.
*: It used to be called 'green', although it's a blue cheese similar to Stilton. It went through a short rebranding phase as 'Jervaulx Blue', and now it's 'Blue Wensleydale'.
This is one of the most pathetically complex things I've ever had to work with. It CONSTANTLY gets in the way of actually getting work done - I spend more time f***ing around with pushes and adds and branches and checkouts that I do actually making code changes!!! What a P.O.S.
This diagram[^] near the bottom of the post says it all.
I think you've just saved me at least a week with that post. I'm looking for a place to host a project and for a VCS. The stuff I was reading recommended GIT. I won't be following it up any further. I've used SVN and its survivable as a team member but I dread having to manage it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Sounds more like your workflow is the problem to me. I tend to script any repeated tasks with more than a couple steps, so my workflow generally becomes: get latest code -> make changes -> run script to make commits, pushes, etc. which is basically the same as using anything else.
Personally, I wish we used Git or Mercurial here, because our commit process strongly discourages putting partially complete things in the repository, and I'd like to have some of the benefits of version control (especially revert) when I'm working on something larger that has be made as one commit to the repository. I wonder if there's a way to set up Git locally to push to CVS...
which involves checkouts, fetches, and pulls, none of which make any sense to me in my angry state. I want to simply check out the latest version. How hard should that be?
run script to make commits, pushes, etc.
The fact that you have SCRIPTS to do those things shows how complex they are. Commit to staging area. Push to remote. Rebase, pull, checkout, WTF??? Again, a simple "commit the changes to the repository" would be sufficient, and again, because I'm so angry that every time I try to start some productive work I end up first spending an hour (YES, A F***ING HOUR) fighting Git, I really have no patience for listening to how "it's my workflow."
Maybe tomorrow I'll be in a better mood.
Care to share your scripts? I might learn something!
Generally I don't need more than a pull to get the code, then commit and push to submit it. I've had a few projects with branches, but I wasn't switching frequently. Maybe I just haven't worked in a large enough project. I'm not sure where my scripts are at the moment though, I fear they may be on my now dead laptop, because that's where I've done most of my Git based work from, but most of them were either just a series of commands I performed routinely (e.g. go to root of git repo, commit all changes, push) with some parameters for branch names, comments, etc. Nothing extremely complicated.
I only had a few more complex ones, like one that went back and branched a project I had gotten way ahead on for a class at each commit with a message containing a chapter number (fortunately, I was basically using a template for my commit messages) so I could just checkout the code for that chapter and submit it for grading, and a second to merge back some file adds when I realized I had forgot to add some files to some of the earlier commits rendering many of the older branches uncompilable, but those were one-time scripts that were faster to write than to do manually 20+ times. The second one could probably be modified into a decent merge script if I could find it.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I really have no patience for listening to how "it's my workflow."
I probably could have worded that a bit better, I don't necessarily mean your personal workflow, but also the workflow that's been imposed upon you (similar to the reason why I can't make commits when I would prefer). I don't find myself changing branches often, but our VCS is so messed up that I have to keep a separate local workspace for each branch because switching between them somehow renders the workspace un-buildable, and even simple tasks like merging a change to another branch becomes a real pain. If I had to work in an environment where I was frequently branching and merging on this system I feel that I'd be in the same position, but not at the fault of the VCS system, the problem would be the poorly managed repository (to be honest, no one actually knows how to make it build, everyone just copies a working copy from someone else, checking it out from the repo doesn't work and no one has ever bother to figure out why and fix it...I suspect the reason is buried somewhere in the thousands of build errors that are just ignored).
Yeah, each step requires multiple commands; I'm not sure if I should like that.
My typical workflow, when working on the main branch:
hacka hacka hacka
because that's part of our job, too.
Sort the mess I coded into easily digestable commits. UI sucks, but does the job.
(at command line, this would be git add, git commit)
alternatively / if this is not good enough:
git rebase -i pub/master
to reorder, clean up and combine commits.
git fetch pub
to get all changes from the other guys.
git rebase pub/master
Put my pending changes on top of the other guys changes
Look at the commits the other guys made, just to get an idea what they are on.
git push peterchen master
backup current state to remote repo (often involving -f)
Build the code. If it compiles, it's good to go!
git push pub master
Push my changes to the main repo
Sometimes, curse at whoever made a push pub master in the meantime
repeat the recent steps since fetch, omitting all the quality checks to get the code pushed and pray that I didn't break the pub repo
The data model takes a bit to wrap your head around. git stores revisions, but most commands actually move around changes between revisions. Branches and tags act like "pins", everything that is not directly or indirectly pinned gets garbage collected.
I have a local "temp" branch that I use for intermediates I want to save before messing around. (you could use git stash, but it's only good if you are 101% sure it will be short-lived).
Larger independent developments go on a branch. master is merged into that dev branch from time to time, when the code is good to go, dev branch is merged into master.
This just shows that your problem isn't really with git, it's with you lack of knowledge of it. I'd imagine you're kind of a green horn to the technology, and you haven't quite figured out how all of these things actually benefit you, if you take a moment to learn them.