nativecoinc

Bjarmason’s post[1] (the parent/replied-to of this submission) explains a way to both use git-rebase and git-merge in the case when you both want the rebased history as well as the “previous version” (so to speak history).

He uses an example similar to this (modified by me):

          A---B---C topic
         /
    D---E---F---G master

What if you want to keep `A - B - C`? But also rebase those commits on top of master?

The trick here (I think) is to checkout `master`, `git merge -s ours topic` (which keeps only changes from `master`), and then rebase `A - B - C` on top of the new merge commit.

Let’s say that `H` is the new merge commit. It will be the case that `G{tree}` = `H{tree}`, because the merge commit discarded all changes from `A - B - C`. So rebasing on top of `H` is the same as rebasing on top of `G`!

          A---B---C   A2+B2---C2 topic
         /         \ /
    D---E---F---G---H master

Here, the operator rebased and squashed `A` and `B`.

Schindelin (one of the Git For Windows maintainers) responds[2] and says that he has been using this strategy for years in order to keep up with Git.

He calls the strategy “merging-rebase”.

In 2021, Schindelin replied to[3] Bjarmason on the same topic:

> Hi Ævar,

>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

>> The difference between "master" and "git-for-windows/main" is large enough that comparing the two will segfault on my system. This is because the range-diff code does some expensive calculations and will overflow the "int" type.

> You are holding this thing wrong.

> The `main` branch of Git for Windows uses merging rebases, therefore you need to use a commit range like `git-for-windows/main^{/^Start.the.merging}..git-for-windows/main` and compare it to `git-for-windows/main..master`.

> Failing that, you will receive only bogus results.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/877etds220.fsf@evledraar.gmail.c...

[2] This submission

[3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2112101528200....

If you search through the commits on the Git project you’ll notice that they often reference previous commits in their commit messages. So yes: past history often comes in handy.

There’s another concern: repository bloat.[1] Ts'o does not want this link to be a mandatory part of the final commit which everyone needs to get on every pull.[2]

His own proposal does not necessitate keeping “history blobs” around: just use Git commit metadata (trailers) and leave the pointed-at data (beyond the cherry-pick backlinks) in an external store like Gerrit.

I think other commenters who suggested no-changes-to-core-git solutions might have mentioned git-notes, which is similar to the external store point since git-notes are completely optional refs (i.e. if you have notes on your commits in your tree then no one else needs to know about it; those who want the metadata can fetch it, those who don’t can save their bandwidth).

[1]:

> If the complaint about Gerrit is that it's not a core part of Git, the challenge is (a) how to carry the code review comments in the git repository, and (b) do so in a while that it doesn't bloat the core repository, since most of the time, you don't want or need to keep a local copy of all of the code review comments going back since the beginning of the project.

[2]: I’m guessing that people who want a “replaces” link would also want to make it optional. Keeping in line with the best-of-both-worlds mantra.

The OP[1] wants the best of git-merge and git-rebase: to be able to rewrite history as well as to have a new “replaces” pointer which points back to the commit before the rebase happened (basically).

> I've been calling this proposal `git replay` or `git replace` but I'd like to hear other suggestions for what to name it. It works like rebase except with one very important difference. Instead of orphaning the original commit, it keeps a pointer to it in the commit just like a `parent` entry but calls it `replaces` instead to distinguish it from regular history. In the resulting commit history, following `parent` pointers shows exactly the same history as if the commit had been rebased. Meanwhile, the history of iterating on the change itself is available by following `replaces` pointers. The new commit replaces the old one but keeps it around to record how the change evolved.

Ts'o thinks[1] that this is too simplistic, citing some workflows that he has experience with from working on Linux. He says that they use metadata in the form of key-value pairs in the commit messages in order to track cherry-picks across trees, how to test the commit, and even the fact that a commit has been dropped in the current tree.[3]

> My experience, from seeing these much more complex use cases --- starting with something as simple as the Linux Kernel Stable Kernel Series, and extending to something much more complex such as the workflow that is used to support a Google Kernel Rebase, is that using just a simple extra "Replaces" pointer in the commit header is not nearly expressive enough. And, if you make it a core part of the commit data structure, there are all sorts of compatibility headaches with older versions of git that wouldn't know about it. And if it then turns out it's not sufficient more the more complex workflows anyway, maybe adding a new "replace" pointer in the core git data structures isn't worth it. It might be that just keeping such things as trailers in the commit body might be the better way to go

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CALiLy7pBvyqA+NjTZHOK9t0AFGYbwqw...

[2] Submission link

[3] How? By making an “empty commit” (I presume: a commit which doesn’t change the tree) and adding the “dropped” metadata to the commit message.

Right on, brother. My friend from from Bhutan wants to get into Christianity by reading the Bible like a nerd. I keep reminding her that most Christians where I come from (the Old World, so authentic) mostly only go to church on Sundays and only follow the Ten Commandments to the degree that they don’t kill people.

For sure. Most people would agree that doing something as a fitness regiment is not a religion.

But you say that there is “no Buddhism” in the West. Clearly there are people who practice Buddhism in the West, whether that be “Western Buddhism” or something else. So one can only surmise that your argument is the following:

Only Asians can be Buddhist.

Well, that’s quite essentialist and othering towards Asians. But what other conclusion could there be? Because if you dialogue with such a person, they will continually raise the bar for being “Buddhist”, starting with pure merit and dedication (like: refrains from killing their parents; is nice to people; follows the N8XP) and then devolving into pseudo-anthropology like how Sri Lankans have different lifestyles compared to a Dutch person, or how Thai people might believe (I don’t know?) in jungle/forest spirits.

Eventually you realize that the only way a born-in-the-West person could become a Buddhist, according to this completely wrongheaded interpretation of “lived experience”, is to do the following:

1. Be drafted into the Vietnam War

2. Get amnesia caused by a shrapnel stuck in your skull

3. Get lost in the Vietnamese jungle

4. Eventually find a village and become adopted

5. Learn the local language somehow

6. Become a Buddhist by being immersed in the “way of life and culture”

Crazy. I thought Pong was “the first video game (released in the 1970s)”. And this sounds a lot more involved.

I mostly use my work computer in my free time.

The ultimate test: can you develop Java on it? (In practice, not in principle.)

The total size of the files in the repo is 1.35 GiB. The total size of all the blobs is 84.9 GiB.

https://pastebin.com/T5HRMfg9

What a gross quote.

Article ostensibly about doing better than SQL: Ah, interesting

Underlying vision or assumption that we’ll all be using JavaScript/TypeScript in any case: Freaking really??

I cloned

    git clone https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project

When entering the directory my fancy prompt timed out

    [WARN] - (starship::utils): Executing command "git" timed out.

But it seemed OKish after `git status` (disk cache?)

    time git status
    ...
     real 0m0.287s
     user 0m0.189s
     sys 0m0.392s

The size of `.git/objects` after the clone was 2.5GB.

Output of `git-sizer`: https://pastebin.com/T5HRMfg9

I want to do some whitespace refactoring on the files in our project. File activity is useful for that since then I can change files that no one is likely to be touching.

Of course a superficial read of a philosophy/attitude/religion which might say something like “turn the other cheek” (basically), and “do the best with what you’ve got”, and “pain is certain but suffering is optional” will be “compatible” (not incompatible) with being a worker bee/soldier. But really: what does one thing have to do with the other? I think meditation retreats have enough on their plate with the human mind, so doing an introduction to Marxism might be too distracting.

With enough propagandistic scholars I’m sure any religion could become pro-capitalist, pro-Japanese, pro-socialist, or what have you. Because we’ve certainly seen some insane religious justifications throughout history.

But “corporate mindfulness” seems to mostly be about mind training. It’s not about submitting to the boss per se (other things are used to instill that attitude). And if Buddhism then is reduced to just that (better resilience through mindfulness meditation), then I don’t really get the complaint? Because it seems like complaining that a workplace offering free gym membership is corrupting the human activities of cardio and weight training in order to make more efficient worker bees/soldiers. And while that’s what the workplace wants, for sure, it’s not like the employee won’t also get some benefits from doing regular weight training and cardio.

> I’m 45. Wife. Kid. The works.

Should someone who is 45 years of age who has none of those things perhaps visit that website?

On the contrary: I get 80% of my woo-fix from AI True Believers.

Z^iz^ek is the kind of person who is an anti-communist while living under Communism, an anti-capitalist while living under capitalism, an anti-Buddhist while living in Boulder, CO, and an anti-catholic while living in Poland.

For sure, the Buddhist majority oppression of the Muslim minority in Myanmar is a niche comparative/inter-religious fact and not something that has been on the world news. Sarcasm.

How interesting. And inconsistent!

Isn’t trading humans one of the wrong professions to lead (contra right livelihood)? Then I don’t see how buying slaves could be right or neutral.

I have been part of a Tibetan sect (a Western sect associated with Karma Kagyu). The people there said that Tibetan Buddhism was the most advanced form of Buddhism. But also that it was only for those who were ready for it. Theravada Buddhism to them would be the simplest form: less powerful but probably also less dangerous.

Those people wouldn’t for one second judge a person who wanted to practice a “less advanced” form of Buddhism. It’s all about what the person is ready for, according to them.

I learned nothing new from this piece.

- Buddhist monks being celibate is well-known

- Being comically (to a normal person) non-violent (the mutilation example) as an ideal is also known

- Either you accept Dukkha as self-evident based on your own life experience because you realize that all good things are temporary, or you have to go deeper and have to consider the implications of eternal “rebirth” (a belief that you cannot use your experience to interrogate)

- If merely “the doing of non-evil” is too simple and unpassionate to you you can merely take on the small task of being a Boddhisattva and save all beings from Samsara

- “Meditation didn’t solve all my problems” (paraphrase)–you should have read the “chop wood carry water” fine print

> If the conclusion you take from this story is that you should be Buddhist, you are absolutely missing the point. The point is that we should experiment with everything and pick what best fits our situation, reverence be damned.

The author critiques Western Buddhism[1] and yet gives a firm “should” for individual ecclecticism, the ultimate Western spiritual-but-not-religious lifestyle. Might be nothing wrong with that, but it is for sure not a should. There are benefits to trying to stick to one or a few traditions. Maybe, for example, the tradition fits your personality and you trust the teachers.

> There is a giant hole in the middle of Buddhist contemplative teachings. This is the disinclination to engage with mental content. […]

> However, as a default meditative stance, it is an overcorrection. First of all, it can lead to, essentially, a scolding relationship with the mind, in which you dismiss all of your desires and fantasies as undesirable “ego mind.”

See the slight of hand? “A giant hole” in the teaching becomes “can lead to”. The first part is what is taught, while the latter part is the interpretation of the student. Of course that often does happen, but having a “scolding relationship with the mind” is never recommended by any meditation teacher. It is a common trap that the student is taught to watch out for and avoid.

> However. My friend Jake, reading this section, correctly pointed out that I am engaging in Salad Bar Criticism. People who like Buddhism point at some areas of the giant Buddhist meme cloud—the giant mass of traditions, observations, and modern derivations—and nod approvingly. I am pointing at other areas of the giant Buddhist meme cloud and making grunting noises. I can only hope that some of us are learning something along the way.

How postmodernist to critique your own essay before we do.

[1] But “Asian Buddhism” is also bad so… or maybe he gives it one point for authenticity and deducts one point for backwardsness, evening things out?

> “Mjøsa is like a mini-ocean, or a really large fjord,” says marine archaeologist Øyvind Ødegård from NTNU.

I cringe every time people call a lake a fjord.

I resent this comment.

Hmpf, analogies are crutches. Carpenters don’t use them so I don’t use them. Just use the right-sized hammer for the nail in front of you.

I’m happy that the author was able to become a chicken. I am! However, I think he is a bit brazen with regards to this attitude of his:

> Bwok bwok bwok, puk puk pukaaak! Cluckity cluck cluck, puk puk pukaaak! Bwwwaaaaaaaaaak!

I know many engineers who would love to become chickens. But they also have responsibilities. They can’t just drop everything and commit to the faunamorphosis. Not to mention that faunamorphosis costs so much that pretty much only FAANG salaried folks can go through with their chicken dream -- and especially now in this economy.

No one’s said that it makes them Good Guy. Only Human.

Before you jump the gun like that again: The context is most likely about the suffering of the patient in question from simply existing in that state, and there being no way to alleviate the suffering (only prolonging the life). Not about saving money.

So it’s a lose-lose: the patient suffers and society has to pay for their privilege to suffer (without recourse, most likely).

And maybe you disagree fundamentally with things like assisted suicide. But someone who posts something like what you replied to most likely do not.

It’s fundamentally the same lookup.

I wonder: Why is Daylight Savings/Normal Time not implemented using monotically increasing hours? Day goes up to hour 23 one time of year and hour 25 the other instead of doing a clock hour twice. Would be weird to be able to have 23-hour and 25-hour days. But this seems to be how leap seconds are handled (one 61 second minute)?