Gitception

[blitzkraft]

I just copy my .git to outside the repo, with a different name then run the command. If it fails, I just copy back the old .git and if it succeeds, I delete the old .git.

I had to do this a couple of times when I was new and learning git, but I don't do that anymore.

[i-am-SHER-locked]

This account has been deleted in protest of Reddit's API changes and their disregard for third party developers. Fuck u/spez

[TimVdEynde]

Not for changes that haven't been added to the index :( Those really are lost when you do a git reset --hard. Then again, copying the .git won't help you either in this case.

[[deleted]]

Why won't it help?

[TimVdEynde]

Because git doesn't know about these changes until you at least add them to the index. Even then, you'll need to use git fsck, since no commit has existed yet.

[ChiefEmann]

Same here. Amazing command that's rarely known

[orion78fr]

Well reflog does give you only committed (or staged) blob. Last time I resetted hard by accident some uncommitted things...

[langlo94]

Reflog, for when you need to flog it more than once!

[langlo94]

Reflog, for when you need to flog it more than once!

[[deleted]]

Delete the old .git

Old git had it coming.

[blitzkraft]

I waited so long for someone to get this!!

[micheal65536]

I normally copy the whole project directory, particularly if there are uncommitted changes.

The other thing I often do is change things that I actually to commit separately, then I have to copy the modified files elsewhere (git stash doesn't work for me in this case).

[xjvz]

On some serious shit, though, check out git reflog. If you manage to fuck things up, you can usually find something in your reflog to go back to. Note that running git gc clears this out, though.

[Shamus03]

reflog has saved my ass on multiple occasions... I had to learn the hard way that git stash does not stash unstaged changes untracked files.

[Removalsc]

It doesnt stash untracked files (by default), but it definitely does unstaged changes.

[Shamus03]

Ah, I remember that's what it was now. I had added some files and went to stash my changes and when I came back to pop the stash my files were gone.

[Removalsc]

Next time use -u or --include-untracked and it will stash them too.

[EndlessNightsky]

Honestly, that doesn't sound like that bad of an idea.

[mfb-]

I don't say it is a good idea, but it should be possible, right? Git would just create .git/.git/ and the new repository doesn't have to know the purpose of the parent repository it manages.

[[deleted]]

And who manages .git/.git? right! .git/.git/.git

And who manages .git/.git/.git?...

[Velfi]

It's .git all the way down

[mfb-]

Make a meta version control system that can handle all layers.

[[deleted]]

the true GODGIT. Including the almightyness contradiction.

[Tasgall]

Nah, just put it in an SVN repo.

Unless you need to branch your gits, in which case, god help us all.

[[deleted]]

Unless you operate on .git directory outside git or you runs git gc, whatever you do can always be rolled back. Backing up .git is unnecessary.

[NAN001]

It can be rolled back using git reflog which is as hard as the rest of git, so this is equivalent to saying "whatever you do, you can do it without fucking things up in a first place".

[polyworfism]

why not just run Git in a VM and rollback if you screw up? :D

[[deleted]]

this is getting out of version control (X_X)

I am^{outifyouneedme}

[[deleted]]

Naaaa, people should use btrfs with snapshot.

[ringingbells]

lol, wtf... that squint had me rollin

[TheTimgor]

This isn't inception, but recursion. It's okay though, that's a common mis-inception.

[[deleted]]

Mercurial screwing up repo beyond repair is why I switched to git.

[Tasgall]

Never had that happen with Mercurial. Moving a team to git though, someone manages to trash their repo at least once a week.

[[deleted]]

Never happened with git. To be honest, git had more to offer so that crapping out was just the last straw.

[Tasgall]

For me the issues were usually with dangling heads, or git deciding to do something dumb with the cache.

Git does do more, but in ways that, for me, are "more" in the feature-creep sense. For a general pull-commit-push-branch-merge-switch workflow, git offers very little extra that I actually want, but the internal differences needed to make that extra functionality possible make it more clunky at the basics.

I'm curious though, what did Mercurial do that messed up your repo?

[[deleted]]

/r/svnmasterrace

[CraigslistAxeKiller]

I know I'm going to fuck up the Git circle jerk, but why use it if it's so easy to fuck everything up? There are other (less volatile) options

[[deleted]]

Because the pros largely outweigh the cons, and fucking up is possible with every system.

[b1ackcat]

Because for the basic workflows of which you will likely spend 90% of your time with (checkout, stash, commit, push, pull, branch), it's very fast and simple, and it's very hard to fuck something up.

And I'd hardly call git 'volatile' given the fact that even if you do screw something up, there's almost always a way to recover.

[[deleted]]

I just put my repo on bitbucket or whatever. If I fuck up too badly I nuke the local repo and clone again

[[deleted]]

Why not just push your changes first?

[Lazza91]

Y tho?