-
alastairp
hmm
2010-03-03 06246, 2010
-
alastairp
aCiD2: just had a huge talk with my manager
2010-03-03 06254, 2010
-
alastairp
he gave me some ideas, we should talk some time
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
alastairp
(preferably not while i'm still at work...)
2010-03-03 06241, 2010
-
aCiD2
alastairp: try and catch me tomorrow some time... or just shoot me and email and talk there :)
2010-03-03 06248, 2010
-
aCiD2 runs to bed now
2010-03-03 06216, 2010
-
alastairp
sweet
2010-03-03 06223, 2010
-
ruaok
nikki: is it ok to name you by your full name in the annual report?
2010-03-03 06244, 2010
-
nikki
bah
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
nikki
no
2010-03-03 06229, 2010
-
alastairp
nikki: I'm quite impressed that no one seems to know your full name
2010-03-03 06237, 2010
-
alastairp
that's quite a feat these days
2010-03-03 06244, 2010
-
nikki
hehe
2010-03-03 06229, 2010
-
nikki
well I only use my surname on official stuff anyway, so it's not that surprising to me
2010-03-03 06218, 2010
-
alastairp
but the common case these days seems to be a 10yr old signs up to facebook and it asks for their name, so they put it in
2010-03-03 06228, 2010
-
alastairp
I did something similar when I first made it onto the net
2010-03-03 06233, 2010
-
nikki
yeah
2010-03-03 06234, 2010
-
nikki ponders url redirects...
2010-03-03 06246, 2010
-
nikki
2010-03-03 06248, 2010
-
navap is proud of himself!
2010-03-03 06249, 2010
-
ruaok joined the channel
2010-03-03 06250, 2010
-
navap
2010-03-03 06210, 2010
-
nikki
hi ruaok
2010-03-03 06216, 2010
-
nikki
I'd rather you didn't
2010-03-03 06251, 2010
-
nikki
(regarding surname, that is)
2010-03-03 06256, 2010
-
ruaok groks
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
ruaok
Nikki S? just Nikki?
2010-03-03 06209, 2010
-
nikki
just nikki :)
2010-03-03 06214, 2010
-
ruaok
lower case?
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
nikki
"Nikki" is fine
2010-03-03 06230, 2010
-
nikki isn't bothered about case
2010-03-03 06233, 2010
-
ruaok
;-)
2010-03-03 06250, 2010
-
ruaok goes to edit the post
2010-03-03 06257, 2010
-
nikki is working on url redirects now
2010-03-03 06205, 2010
-
ruaok
\ø/
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
nikki
I downloaded the closedmods dump and extracted all the mb urls, gave me plenty to work with
2010-03-03 06254, 2010
-
nikki
and did the same for annotations
2010-03-03 06208, 2010
-
ruaok
cool
2010-03-03 06235, 2010
-
nikki
the urls from the edit notes I mean
2010-03-03 06244, 2010
-
ruaok nods
2010-03-03 06209, 2010
-
ruaok
who hoo! a new pretty lights EP!
2010-03-03 06224, 2010
-
alastairp
navap: github. yay!
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
navap
Yeah I'm quite thrilled.
2010-03-03 06207, 2010
-
alastairp
so, that's what - clone from git.mb then push? :-P
2010-03-03 06211, 2010
-
navap
Yeah
2010-03-03 06222, 2010
-
navap
Is there a direct git.mb>github method?
2010-03-03 06226, 2010
-
alastairp
no
2010-03-03 06233, 2010
-
navap
Okay phew :)
2010-03-03 06240, 2010
-
alastairp
I talked to the github guys about it a few months ago, but they didn't seem interested
2010-03-03 06200, 2010
-
navap
So I managed to create a branch, edit a file, and also merge that branch back in.
2010-03-03 06210, 2010
-
navap
But I just realized that it didn't record the commiter properly.
2010-03-03 06228, 2010
-
navap
So... what are my options?
2010-03-03 06239, 2010
-
alastairp
you need to set some prefs
2010-03-03 06250, 2010
-
navap
Yeah I set them.
2010-03-03 06257, 2010
-
alastairp
2010-03-03 06201, 2010
-
alastairp
oh,
2010-03-03 06205, 2010
-
alastairp
now you want to undo?
2010-03-03 06209, 2010
-
navap
I had them set earlier as well, but I just reinstalled Windows and reinstalled git just now.
2010-03-03 06217, 2010
-
alastairp
have you pushed?
2010-03-03 06226, 2010
-
navap
Not after doing the merge.
2010-03-03 06232, 2010
-
alastairp
OK, cool
2010-03-03 06244, 2010
-
alastairp
yes you can, then you just recommit
2010-03-03 06249, 2010
-
alastairp
can't remember what you want
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
alastairp
I've done something like this before
2010-03-03 06205, 2010
-
navap
So I need to revert my commit?
2010-03-03 06222, 2010
-
alastairp
yes
2010-03-03 06231, 2010
-
alastairp
if there was just one commit you could have commit --ammended
2010-03-03 06244, 2010
-
alastairp
but the merge would have been a commit too, so you need to undo both
2010-03-03 06208, 2010
-
alastairp
git revert HEAD^2 might be what you want
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
navap
I'm using tortoisegit, and when I try and revert I get an empty dialog with three columns: path, text status, property status.
2010-03-03 06258, 2010
-
alastairp
sorry, I'm not very familiar with reverting, and not at all with graphical tools
2010-03-03 06218, 2010
-
navap
Well I have a command prompt open as well where I can type git stuff in.
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
alastairp
right
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
alastairp
I'm asking smart people now. but aCiD2 should be able to let you know... when he wakes up :-P
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
navap
I could also just start all over. Is it possible to remove a branch?
2010-03-03 06216, 2010
-
navap
All it was was a one line change :p
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
ruaok
navap: yep
2010-03-03 06231, 2010
-
ruaok
git branch -d <name>
2010-03-03 06232, 2010
-
ruaok
IIRC
2010-03-03 06251, 2010
-
navap
Okay so it's deleted. Now on github I still have master and the now-deleted branch.
2010-03-03 06205, 2010
-
navap
If I push will it delete that branch?
2010-03-03 06210, 2010
-
alastairp
I think you need to push the deleted branch
2010-03-03 06216, 2010
-
alastairp
git push origin mybranch
2010-03-03 06228, 2010
-
navap
Even though the branch doesn't exist locally anymore?
2010-03-03 06253, 2010
-
navap
Yeah that failed
2010-03-03 06256, 2010
-
alastairp
hmm, interesting
2010-03-03 06257, 2010
-
alastairp
yeah
2010-03-03 06205, 2010
-
alastairp
ah, git reflog
2010-03-03 06209, 2010
-
alastairp
that's what I've used before
2010-03-03 06253, 2010
-
navap
2010-03-03 06222, 2010
-
navap
Yes, I named it my-cool-feature :)
2010-03-03 06232, 2010
-
alastairp
sorry - I'm clutching at straws here :(
2010-03-03 06213, 2010
-
navap
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
navap
I added the colon and it deleted the remote branch
2010-03-03 06216, 2010
-
alastairp
ah, sweet
2010-03-03 06233, 2010
-
alastairp
OK, people tell me it's git reset that you want
2010-03-03 06208, 2010
-
navap
So now my local master branch has the modified file, I just pulled from git.mb and it said already up-to-date.
2010-03-03 06227, 2010
-
navap
So how would I force pull or something like that?
2010-03-03 06248, 2010
-
alastairp
you want to put the file back to what's on git.mb?
2010-03-03 06254, 2010
-
navap
Yes
2010-03-03 06201, 2010
-
alastairp
so git status shows it as modified?
2010-03-03 06209, 2010
-
alastairp
you should be able to git checkout <foo>
2010-03-03 06215, 2010
-
alastairp
on the file
2010-03-03 06234, 2010
-
navap
git status doesn't list anything because I already commited that change (I think that's how it works?)
2010-03-03 06243, 2010
-
navap
It does say that I'm ahead by 1 commit.
2010-03-03 06255, 2010
-
alastairp
oh, it's committed on your branch but not on the one from git.mb?
2010-03-03 06220, 2010
-
navap
I'm on master now, remember I merged the two brnaches locally.
2010-03-03 06227, 2010
-
navap
So my master now has the modified file.
2010-03-03 06208, 2010
-
alastairp
and now you want to..?
2010-03-03 06230, 2010
-
navap
hmm actually..nothing :)
2010-03-03 06200, 2010
-
navap
Oh right, that commit was by unknown
2010-03-03 06236, 2010
-
navap
bleh, I'll just restart the process.
2010-03-03 06252, 2010
-
alastairp
:-P
2010-03-03 06219, 2010
-
ruaok
2010-03-03 06241, 2010
-
navap
Only 1 slot left! Or is it 2? What's with the mysteriously expanding search server?
2010-03-03 06244, 2010
-
ruaok
1 slot left.
2010-03-03 06206, 2010
-
ruaok
the other slot has the switch in it , facing backwards
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
ruaok
2010-03-03 06253, 2010
-
ruaok
and those search servers are total pitas.
2010-03-03 06215, 2010
-
ruaok
donated boxes that we reboot twice a week on schedule and they *still* crash a few times a month.
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
ruaok
thats 4U of suck.
2010-03-03 06235, 2010
-
navap
So one slot needs to be kept empty for the two cables to go to the back?
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
ruaok
if Ihad $3k spare I'd replace them with 2 1U dells.
2010-03-03 06204, 2010
-
ruaok
no, I could route those via where the switch goes.
2010-03-03 06252, 2010
-
ruaok
I'm still sorely tempted to buy a new server for the DB migration when we release NGS.
2010-03-03 06206, 2010
-
ruaok
have one server to serve out the read-only traffic to keep the site up.
2010-03-03 06231, 2010
-
ruaok
then the main DB can be tuned and started on the NGS upgrade script.
2010-03-03 06259, 2010
-
ruaok
in theory the NGS switch that way could be: normal -> read only -> NGS
2010-03-03 06205, 2010
-
ruaok
with instant switchovers.
2010-03-03 06221, 2010
-
navap
That wound be really nice.
2010-03-03 06225, 2010
-
navap
would*
2010-03-03 06239, 2010
-
ruaok
yeah, and the server could be used later for other stuff.
2010-03-03 06247, 2010
-
ruaok
like replacing those crappy search servers.
2010-03-03 06250, 2010
-
navap
How long would the transition take?
2010-03-03 06253, 2010
-
ruaok
but I could do that cheaper.
2010-03-03 06219, 2010
-
ruaok
if we finish the script to port all the edits... 2-3 hours.
2010-03-03 06246, 2010
-
navap
That's not really too bad, even if you did take the site down for that time period.
2010-03-03 06256, 2010
-
navap
What about pending edits?
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
ruaok
but, we may keep the site in read only mode just to do some maint on other boxes.
2010-03-03 06212, 2010
-
ruaok
thats still an open question.
2010-03-03 06229, 2010
-
navap
Read only for 14 days would be quite sucky.
2010-03-03 06234, 2010
-
ruaok
we most likely need to shut off new edits a few days ahead of time and then do a massive call to vote to close out as many edits as possible.
2010-03-03 06245, 2010
-
ruaok
2 days ought to do it.
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
ruaok
and really, if we all get busy voting, how long can it take?
2010-03-03 06203, 2010
-
navap
And then just accept left over edits?
2010-03-03 06214, 2010
-
ruaok
reject
2010-03-03 06223, 2010
-
navap
Okay
2010-03-03 06239, 2010
-
ruaok
we should simply tell people that for 2 weeks prior that if they want to make serious or contentious edits to wait.
2010-03-03 06247, 2010
-
navap
I was just about to suggest that.
2010-03-03 06247, 2010
-
nikki thinks a decent way to approve edits would help
