Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category
And so I don’t lose the email, a link to a git recipe: renaming your ‘master’ branch
April 27th, 2009Git recipe: creating a new local branch and getting it pushed to remote repo
April 27th, 2009There may be better ways. “Recipe” implies process given to me, and it gets the job done. I have better things to do (i.e. projects) than play with SCM. Azeroth isn’t going to save itself…
1. Create new branch locally
git branch <new branch name> <old branch name>
2. Push new branch to server
git push origin <new branch name>
3. Make sure changes to new local branch go to remote version (unsure if this step is necessary, as I’ve never tested not doing it)
git branch -D <new branch name>
4. Check out the new branch again
git checkout -b <new branch name> –track origin/<new branch name>
Adding a project to cruisecontrol.rb with git and on a different branch
December 18th, 2008While I’m at it…
./cruise add <project name> -r <repository url> -s git -b <branch name>
Apple strikes again
December 18th, 2008This time it’s with TextEdit, which is probably WAAAAAY better than Notepad, because Micro$oft didn’t write it.
Well, true to Apple’s form of thinking its users are too dumb to know how to use a computer, I found out that TextEdit does not let you choose what extension to put on a file. I’m doing a MySQL create table statement, and copying/pasting the results of a show create table statement was overloading the terminal window– really weird text was coming out, and MYSQL couldn’t make sense of it. So I decided to paste it into a simple text editor, save that as a .sql file, and then import that into the database via the command line.
Now, I know that file doesn’t have to have a .sql extension. I like it that way though, and seeing how I’m the user, the computer should listen to me.
So what happens when one goes to specify one’s own extension on a file in TextEdit? One is treated to the following dialog box (which is modal, of course):
It isn’t particularly difficult to save a file with a different extension, and Apple’s philosophy of hiding any sort of file-system-level issues from ALL users weakens TextEdit’s usefulness. When I’m using a Windows machine and need to quickly test something in HTML (for example), I load up Notepad, quickly enter the snippet under test, and then save it as an HTML document. I would not have any such luck as a TextEdit user.
Am I left the option of changing the extension in Finder after? Sure. But that requires leaving TextEdit, finding the file, praying that I can even see the extension, and so forth. Not the gold standard of usability. Do I have a more able text editor on the machine? Yes, TextMate, but it’s a bloated monstrosity (ever done a ‘Find in Project?’) without the power of Visual Studio, and it doesn’t come to mind for quick editing tasks. And yes, in this particular example, the extension didn’t actually matter because thankfully mysql is better software than TextEdit. The point is, I should be able to use a different file extension if I want to. Not all users are as scared of the file system as you think Apple. Leave us the option!
This is yet another reason why I would never spend any of my own money on an Apple computer.
Edit: So, I got mad and wrote the post. Then I gave the file the extension I wanted and tried importing it into my database, only to be greeted by the following error: ERROR 1049 (42000) at line 1: Unknown database ‘tf1ansiansicpg1252cocoartf949cocoasubrtf350′. I thought, “I sure don’t remember specifying database tf1ansiansicpg1252cocoartf949cocoasubrtf350.” TextEdit is serious when it says it only does .rtf files. That polution of a .sql script is quite normal for an .rtf. So Apple does not provide a plain text editor, or if TextEdit does do plain text, it isn’t readily apparent.
2nd edit: apparently it does other file formats, if you choose them from a drop-down menu on the save dialog box. However, you’re still locked into the extension associated with the format. And it doesn’t have a plain-text option. TextEdit still loses.
Last night’s VP debate
October 3rd, 2008I’ll have some other topics to post after this one, but I just wanted to address 1 issue quickly– the debate moderator. I’ve seen a fair share of debates, what with the primaries and all, but I just have to say I have never been so impressed with the moderator.
I was fearful like I’m sure many conservatives were that Ms. Ifill would favor Biden, seeing how she has The Book coming out on Innauguration Day. I saw no bias. And above and beyond that, I liked her style of asking questions. I’ll have to edit this post with more details once I’ve rewatched the debate.
So hats off to you Gwen. The questions were informative, fair, and kept the debate lively.
7 years
September 11th, 2008It has been 7 years since 9/11. I remember walking into church in France for a choir practice when I got the news. We weren’t sure if it had been an accident or not. Turns out it wasn’t.
Anyway, not that anyone reads this, I want to send my sympathies to those who lost loved ones that day and who have lost loved ones as result of the chain of events that followed that terrible day.
Present reality vs. future possibility
August 14th, 2008I’m listening to the radio this morning, and in a news segment there was a little blurb about John McCain choosing a so-called pro-choice running mate. The announcer then made a mention of abortion “rights.”
Being one who chooses to err on the side of life, I have a big issue when someone talks about abortion “rights.” America has a duty to protect her citizens, and the unborn certainly don’t have the capability to speak up for themselves. Just as I feel we should reinstitute usury laws to help protect the financially weak (the lack of such laws unfairly harming minorities), I feel we should protect a child who happens to reside within his/her mother’s womb. Where do their rights factor into abortion “rights?” But that really isn’t the issue of this post.
I’ve read so-called pro-choice advocates argument that a mother is here now, and a child is only a possiblity in the future, so society must err on the mother’s side when making this choice. That is certainly a sound argument (sound = the conclusion follows the premise, regardless of whether or not the premise is flawed; it’s a logically consistent position).
So let’s take that sound argument to another issue of the day. Global Warming. The proselytes of the Church of Global Warming warn us of a Vengeful God that will strike at us if we don’t do “something.” They propose policies that would bankrupt our nation and cost lives now all for the sake of some future possibility.
So which is it? Does a certain present automatically override possible futures? Or is just that progressive folk have chosen certain issues about which they feel passionate?
Look, as a conservative, I actually do respect the sound arguments of others. I’m just asking for some consistency here.
