Interesting idea to store github comments inside git, the article just isn’t very clear to me on how to actually do it.

He’s talking about using an “internal CLI tool” so I guess it’s not a public tool?

But anyways, this kinda sounds like something you could do though a Github Action right? Like if a PR is merged, run an action that also appends PR comments or other meta-data from github into git

Well to be clear, this was not supposed to be a jab at gitflow, or me complaining specifically about gitflow. I merely used “gitflow” as an example of a set of conventions and standardizations that comes nicely packaged as one big set of conventions.

But there’s nothing wrong with gitflow. I was just saying - it are not set in stone rules you must follow religiously. If you’re using it and it seems more practical to adapt the flow for your own use-case, don’t worry it’d be considered wrong to not stick strictly to it

I think a common misconception is that there’s a “right way to do git” - for example: “we must use Gitflow, that’s the way to do it”.

There are no strict rules for how you should use git, it’s just a tool, with some guidelines what would probably work best in certain scenarios. And it’s fine diverge from those guidelines, add or remove some extra steps depending on what kinda project or team-structure you’re working in.

If you’re new to Git, you probably shouldn’t just lookup Gitflow, structure your branches like that, and stick strictly to it. It’s gonna be a bit of trial-and-error and altering the flow to create a setup that works best

Cool thanks, I never heard of that one before, I’ll try it out

Get Sourcetree

Struggling with a problem that i just can’t seem to figure out.

What problems are you struggling with specifically?

You basically just pick a system, for example Forgejo - that’s comparable to a self-hosted github. Which also comes with github-like actions for CI/CD/Building

If those actions are not good enough for building, you could also self host something like Jenkins or TeamCity

I believe there are a large number of feature requests on Lemmy’s GitHub page, making it difficult for developers to prioritize what’s truly important to users.

Github issues are annoying that way. You could solve it by closing down “issues” and using discussions instead. People can up and downvote discussions, and you can see that from the listview, unlike with issues.

And you can have threaded conversations in discussions.

I’ve never really needed to use rebase, but my workflow is probably kinda weird:

• I just start programming from the dev branch
• At some point once I have stuff to commit, I do git checkout -b new_feature_branch, and so move my changes to a different branch
• I commit a bunch of stuff into that branch, usually just with commit messages of “working on new_feature”
• Once I’m done, and I have - lets say - 10 commits in that branch:
• I do git reset head~10 meaning all 10 commits are reverted into staged changes
• I now do 1 new commit of all the changes, with a decent commit message to explain the new feature
• I git push -f the new commit back to origin (of feature branch)
• I PR the feature branch to dev, and merge it

It works pretty well for me, but I was told its weird, and I should rebase instead

I use it to backup my save games. Not sure if that’s conventional.

For example, I’d MKLink %appdata%/Local/Pal/Save/ to a folder in my save repo, and commit that every once in a while.

There’s a user made OpenAPI spec: https://github.com/MV-GH/lemmy_openapi_spec - You probably mean that one

I’ve had similar issues as you mentioned that the dev did fix - but yea, Typescript has less precision than Rust (the source) or the openapi spec. And the Typescript client is build for Lemmy-JS and not build an example for other language client libraries…

Though the OpenAPI Documents in C# and Java are based on reflection of the source itself, and Rust doesn’t have Reflection like that… So it’s probably difficult for them to add without manually maintaining the OpenAPI specs

Come on, just "stuff" is way too vague…

It’s either "fixed stuff" for a 3k LoC commit where you moved a bunch of stuff around, or "Added stuff" for a 5k+ LoC commit if you actually added anything new

I don’t know if there’s a “definitive guide” - it’s not that complicated to get a torrent client up and running. What kind of content are you looking for? Movies, Series, Music, Games, Books…?

Best is probably to try to get access to a decent private tracker, and an “easy” one - one with a bonus point system for seeding and uptime - that makes it much easier to keep a good ratio with a NAS, if you’re just permanently seeding everything you download, you’ll get points and “rise the ranks” of that tracker.

Once you’re a high enough rank on that tracker, you’ll get access to their “Invite Forums” where other private trackers advertise and give out invites to their trackers

What software/OS are you running on your NAS? If you’re running some goofy software on a private tracker your client might not be whitelisted.

Besides that - this NAS is attached to your home network I assume? Is it behind a router? Are the ports you’re using for torrenting port-forwarded?

What tracker are you testing this on? A bunch of trackers will have a “Connectivity check” that will tell you whether or not your client is connectable