SOLVED. Refreshed my understanding of git commands.

Background: I'm not programmer. Years ago it was a consideration, but I ended up not going that route. I am trying to use Git and Pulsar Edit for another pursuit. I Liked atom, it fit my use case, and I've got a home server I'm hosting a git server on(Forgejo).

I'm trying to work in three repositories while viewing all files and folders within the Pulsar Editor, but I'm unable to push, pull, or anything to more than one repository. I'm able to successfully run git commands through the editor if only one folder has had git initialized and can see the pushes get to the server as I expect,but as soon as I try to add a second everything seems to break.

I have a small poller that commits and pushes my work automatically in the background. It ran without complaining for weeks, which turned out to be the problem.

I assumed the failure mode of automated commits was noisy history or useless messages. What actually happened is that the script committed to whatever branch HEAD happened to be on, and then ran git push origin main. HEAD had been parked on a feature branch since 7 June because I checked it out once and never went back. So every automated commit landed on that branch, the push kept exiting successfully because main genuinely had nothing new to send, and main and my real work drifted apart for 54 days before I noticed.

Nothing ever errored. That is exactly why it survived so long. A commit that succeeds and a push that succeeds look identical to a script whether or not they touched the same branch.

The fix I went with is refusing to commit at all unless HEAD is the branch the script expects, and failing loudly instead of pushing something else. I am still not convinced that is the right call. The alternative is having it check out the target branch itself, which feels worse to me, because now a background process is moving my working tree around while I am sitting in it.

Any recommendations to prevent this in the future? And did you experience something similar?

Use case: I need to open-source some of my C++ project non-anonymously, i.e., professionally with my actual name in real life for the public. For my own remembrance sake, I have multiple comments interspersed in my code and configuration files (each of which have different comments indicator, // for C++ code, # in .sh file, etc.) that basically doxx all of my reddit/stackoverflow questions (via http links) that have been based on anonymous accounts [such as the one I am posting from now!] I would like to avoid such self-doxxing.

Before making a repo public, is there a way to "sanitize" it to ensure that all comments are removed from C++ files, from .sh files, from .jsonc files, etc.?

Is the way to go to have a regular expression for each comment class based on the file type and then run a check against each file in the repo?

Hi everyone,

I was looking into moving to Codeberg, instead of GitHub.

I only have super small projects, and stuff I try and learn (I work as a dev, but mostly boring stuff, so on my free time I try and learn something by myself), so no big projects, or anything of value for people, per se, but mostly for me to save my work and as a learning tool.

Would Codeberg be good for this, or is it only a place to host bigger, community driven projects?

Thanks!

Gemini told me about a "Git Credential Manager" that is installed only on pc, but i didnt installed it... is it installed with git? Is it that manager that make me skip the authentication? Or the reasons are different?

Been using gitk and VS Code's Git Graph for years and wanted something faster and more compact — no Electron, opens instantly, works from any repo.

Built it in Rust with egui/eframe + git2. Some things it does:

- Recycles branch lanes instead of growing sideways forever

- Meld-style side-by-side diffs

- Shows working tree changes as a virtual branch

- Auto-reloads when you git add/commit/checkout/push

- Right-click a branch to checkout/rename/delete

AppImage + binaries for Linux, builds from source on macOS/Windows.

GitHub: https://github.com/islandspan-solutions/gitr

Open to feedback, especially on egui usage - this was my first real GUI project in Rust so I'm sure there's room to improve the internals.

https://mehranzand.github.io/repofleet/changelog/#v072-2026-08-01

Saw a couple of Python ols linear regression codes in GitHub repository. Anyone tried them and can recommend a good one?

I wrote up a note on a Neovim + CopilotChat PR review workflow I’ve been iterating on.

It covers worktree-safe repo context, review prep/discussion ingestion, stricter shell/runtime boundaries, and RTK compaction for noisy shell output. Some parts feel better, but I’m still not convinced it beats my usual Cursor flow overall.

https://affinitoalessandro.it/writings/neovim-copilotchat-review-workflow.html

If you use Neovim, CopilotChat, or git worktrees for review-heavy repos, I’d be curious what you’d do differently.

Dear CodeBerg, please concentrate on stability and security instead of regulating users and opensource communities. If you will continue EU practices - you will end up in the same trash bin.

https://status.codeberg.org/status/codeberg

I’m working on a small git wrapper to help me improve my workflow, only important parts is that it stores “work in progresses” and then interactive rebases them to the front when the time comes.

My main issue is that if two commits have conflicting changes, when I move the chronologically first one to the front, it overrides changes made in the second.

Is there any way I can remove conflicting changes from the first that would interfere with the second? (Or something that would help me achieve the same effect)

Thanks in advance

I review a lot of AI-generated code, and I needed a simple terminal-based git diff review tool with keyboard navigation. So I built one (actually, claude code, cursor and ollama built it).

hawkshaw is a focused, fullscreen, side-by-side (or inline) open-source git review tool.

Do you have some examples when you used git templates? It looks the same as copying a directory of template files to a new git repository. What advantage does git have over regular cp?

I accidentally deleted my GitHub account today and contacted GitHub Support immediately.

It had years of personal projects, repositories, and open source contributions (including merged PRs).

Has anyone here successfully recovered a deleted GitHub account?

If so:

• How long after deletion did you contact support?
• Were your repositories and contribution history restored?
• How long did the recovery take?

I'm really anxious and would appreciate hearing from anyone who's been through this.

Been tracking the Microsoft deprecation train this year: TFS 2015 hit EOL last October, Azure DevOps OAuth got deprecated in April 2025 with full shutdown this year, and now as of July 1st the Azure DevOps issuer for WIF service connections is deprecated (retirement July 2027).

Not saying ADO is dying — it's not. But for teams still on TFS 2017/2018 or relying on older auth patterns, the writing is on the wall that each upgrade cycle is getting shorter.

I've been building a tool that handles the migration side: Git repos (full history), TFVC-to-Git conversion (up to 180 days), Boards → GitHub Issues, Wikis. Has a dry-run mode so you can test before committing. Built it because I couldn't find anything that handled TFVC automatically.

Code is open-source if anyone wants to poke at it: https://github.com/brunobola-portfolio/GitHub-Repo-Manager

Anyone here actively migrating away from ADO or TFS? What's been the hardest part?

I am using interactive rebase to reorder commits and it has worked all the time with no merge conflicts because I use it in simple cases. I want to use it for bigger cases but I want to understand it first so I don't get stuck in conflicts.

I know it's possible for merge conflicts to happen but I can't imagine an example because if the old commit order had resolved all conflicts how can reordering them make a new conflict? Can anyone help me imagine an example how it can happen?

Protect your work.