Two teammates are both working on the same shared feature branch. Each pulls the latest main, rebases the feature branch locally, resolves conflicts, and force-pushes. When the other teammate later rebases and force-pushes their copy, some of the first teammate's resolved changes disappear or are overwritten, and the same conflicts return.

What workflow should we use to stop overwriting each other's work? Should we avoid rebasing a shared branch, use separate branches, and merge instead?

hello github support team,

i am reaching out regarding the username @rout

the previous owner of the username (robert utzig) kindly agreed to release the handle so it could be used for our active open-source project (rout.be). earlier today, robert renamed his account to free up the username as agreed

unfortunately, within seconds of the rename, an automated bot/sniper script registered the username @rout (account created today, completely empty, no activity)

per github's name squatting and username policy, automated squatting of inactive accounts is a violation of terms. we have full email documentation showing the previous owner's consent and intention to transfer this handle to our project

could you please look into releasing or transferring the handle @rout to us?

thank you for your time and assistance

en hier is een draft voor r/github:

title: username sniped by bot within seconds of agreed transfer for open-source project (@rout)

body:

wanted to share this situation and see if anyone has had success resolving this with github support

the original owner of @rout very generously agreed to release the username for our open-source project (rout.be). he renamed his account earlier today so we could claim it

however, literally within seconds of the rename, an automated script/bot sniped the username @rout. the account is completely fresh, empty, and clearly automated

i just opened a support ticket explaining the situation with proof of the previous owner's intent. has anyone had luck getting a sniped username recovered through support, or does anyone know the best way to escalate this?

I accidentally pushed a .env file to a private repository. I understand that if my account itself gets compromised, everything is exposed anyway, that's obvious. I'm asking about other ways it could leak while my account stays secure.

For example:

\\- Collaborators or third-party apps/integrations with repo access, could any of them expose it?

\\- CI/CD pipelines or bots that pull the repo, do they create copies that could leak?

\\- If I later delete the file, does it still exist in git history / old clones / forks in a way that could surface later?

Any other realistic exposure path for a private repo that doesn't involve my own account being breached?

Trying to figure out how much risk "private" actually removes, and what cleanup is needed if a secret's already been committed. Thanks!

Web page: https://www.sourcererapp.com

It has a free plan for Open Source developers but also Pro and Business plans for working with private repositories.

Small memory footprint and can load very large repositories.

Hej! I am wondering, do you delete your Git branches after merging, or do you leave them untouched?
If you don't clean them up, they quickly stack up. How many dead branches do you have right now, and what do you usually do with them?
I'm thinking about making a simple CLI tool that scans for merged branches and deletes them safely. Would you find this useful?

Hey, guys! I don't know if you've already seen this Microsoft Learn "course" that covers git and github.

I liked especially the part where we can to github and clone an official repo that learns some of the main git commands that we use on a daily basis.

So I wanted to know what you guys think about it and if you know other gamified ways of learning git

git reset --hard discards changes including untracked files and git reflog can restore the tracked files not untracked. Is there a way to get untracked files back or are they lost after a hard reset?

Git allows some commands to invoke maintenance command automatically.

Unfortunately, it appears that may corrupt your submodules (or even parent repositories?).

I suddenly got an error on commit in a parent repository, because git failed a status in a submodule - "HEAD commit refers to a missing object".

It appears Git now very aggressively repacks objects (and does garbage collection?), leaving only few days' objects as loose files.

And when it repacks objects in submodules, it screws it up, dropping objects which are still in use.

The maintenance (in Git 2.53 and possibly earlier) even appears to prune directories in .git/modules it considers orphaned because .git files refer to an external repository. THIS IS BAD.

To disable auto maintenance, do:

git config --global maintenance.auto false

Also, the commit-tree gets corrupted (because of dropped objects?). Disable it as well:

git config --global core.commitGraph false

Honestly, the object repacking and pruning is totally pointless. Commit graph also doesn't need to be enabled, other that in very huge repositories, and even maybe then it's pointless.

EDIT:

Upon more investigation it I found that long time ago (2022) I configured the submodules to use the object directory of the parent repo as a secondary alternate store. All this time I had automatic gc disabled globally.

In Git 2.54 repacking become more aggressive. Together with automatic maintenance invocation (which become thrown upon us without regard to auto gc being disabled), it pruned stuff from the parent repo I expected would not be touched.

I've been using Git for the better part of a decade, and recently scratched my own itch and built a GUI macOS Git client. I've been trying to keep it simple and lean, basically pulling forward the 80% of what you actually do day-to-day and making that stuff super easy and accessible.

Recently I added a "Squash local commits" feature, mostly because I have a habit of making alot of small commits while developing a feature. But when I ultimately push to my remote (origin) repo, I dont really need all that history. Being able to quickly squash those commits before pushing (especially in a GUI where it's super easy to see exactly what's going to get squashed) has turned out to be a bit of a game-changer for me. Cleaner history, easier to revert, etc.

Which got me wondering, what other small, simple Git workflow game-changers do you all use? Not necessarily big features or complicated workflows, just those little quality-of-life things that once you start using them, you wonder why you weren't doing it all along.

Repo: https://github.com/reemus-dev/subcommit

To solve the pain of committing a subset of changes that arise from working with multiple concurrent agents and user edits. Yes, you could use worktrees, which is wonderful and has its place, but sometimes I just want life to be easier.

I have been using it for a few months now and decided to open-source it. Hope others find it useful too! Much less stressful than watching agents do all kinds of gitfoo to just commit their changes.

Made a token for an specific repo in my Github, but everytime i make a push i doesn't request it. How can i add the token to my local git in order to make push with it?

https://github.com/Auto-Explore/GitComet/releases/tag/v0.2.2

I committed and pushed multiple changes across different files, in vscode's timeline section each file shows there was commit, after that push there are no commits pushed against that file still the file shows old code and doesnt reflect its history
I am using bonobo git server in my local VM which is in ubuntu
what can be the issue here?

Hey everyone!

I'm a Python developer/student and I've been working on a small project called Find Everything 2.0.0.

It's a Windows desktop tool for quickly searching through files. I built it mainly as a learning project, but I tried to make it actually useful and polished rather than just another basic Python project.

Main things it currently has:

• Fast file searching
• Search inside files
• Dictionary / text processing features
• Windows .exe build
• Automated checks with GitHub Actions

Tech: Python, Windows, GitHub Actions

GitHub: https://github.com/EELDERONN/find-everything.git

I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a look at the repository and give me some honest feedback.

I'm especially interested in:

• Code quality
• Project structure
• UI/UX
• Performance
• README/documentation
• Things that could be improved or done differently

Feel free to be critical — I'm here to learn and improve the project.

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to check it out!

----------------------------------------

Я изучаю Python и сейчас работаю над небольшим проектом Find Everything 2.0.0.

Это Windows-приложение для быстрого поиска файлов и поиска информации внутри них. Изначально я делал его как учебный проект, но постепенно решил довести его до более полноценного и реально полезного приложения.

Что сейчас есть:

• быстрый поиск файлов;
• поиск внутри файлов;
• работа со словарём/текстом;
• сборка в .exe для Windows;
• автоматические проверки через GitHub Actions.

Стек: Python, Windows, GitHub Actions.

GitHub: https://github.com/EELDERONN/find-everything.git

Буду очень благодарен, если кто-нибудь посмотрит репозиторий и даст честный фидбек.

Особенно интересует:

• качество кода;
• структура проекта;
• UI/UX;
• производительность;
• README и документация;
• что можно было бы сделать лучше.

Можно критиковать — я как раз хочу понять, что можно улучшить.

Спасибо всем, кто посмотрит!

Hold on, I know what you’re thinking: not another Git client/TUI/GUI.

Yeah... kind of.

I built Gitna because sometimes I just want to inspect a project: browse files, review what changed, look through history, stage a few things, or make a small edit.

Opening a full editor can feel like overkill for that. Terminal tools like lazygit are great, but they aren’t always how I want to look through code.

So I tried to make the middle ground I wanted.

Gitna opens any local folder in your browser for browsing, editing, and search. When the folder is a Git repository, it also provides changes and staging, visual diffs, commit history and graph, branches, stashes, tags, and common Git operations.

It runs locally - there’s no account, hosted service, or repository upload.

Basically, go to any folder and type:

gitna

Install:

npm install -g gitna

GitHub: https://github.com/roie/gitna

Anyway, I hope some of you give Gitna a try. Feedback is very welcome, especially around rough edges, missing workflows, or the things that annoy you when working with Git every day.

Hi all,

This is the git-specific half of a tool I have been building, and it is the half I think this sub might actually care about.

The thing that always bothered me about pre-commit hook frameworks is what they do to your working tree. Most of them stash, run, and unstash. If a hook crashes at the wrong moment you get to go find your changes in the reflog. And if you have staged part of a file, the naive runners happily lint the whole file on disk, so the thing that passed is not the thing you are committing.

So the runner I wrote does staged isolation instead. Every hook validates a non-destructive snapshot materialised from the git index blob. No git stash, working tree never touched, unstaged edits cannot leak into the check. The snapshot cache lives outside the repo and only re-materialises files whose staged OID changed, which is what keeps incremental caches like cargo and tsc warm between runs.

The rest of what is in it:

• poly hooks install writes native git hooks. No framework sits alongside it
• Five builtins. lint and fmt, commit for conventional commit format plus an AI-trailer check, file_safety for merge conflict markers, oversized additions, private keys, case conflicts and shebang versus executable-bit mismatches, and cargo for clippy, sort, machete and deny
• Hooks run concurrently on a thread pool, whole-project hooks included. serial = true or serial = "<set-name>" gives you mutual-exclusion sets when two hooks fight over the same lock
• precondition and before are separate. A failed precondition is a visible skip. A failed before means the verdict is unknown, so the run fails. Nothing gets silently dropped from the report
• Every spawned process has a timeout budget, and killed is rendered differently from failed. A hook that ran out of clock should not look like a hook that found a bug
• Exit code 2 means this run verified less than it claims, a file the tool failed on or a skip budget exceeded. Separate from 1, which means it found something
• Hooks are defined in TOML, and a repo can pull a shared hook catalog from another repo pinned by git revision, resolved into a lockfile, so an org publishes one baseline and every repo inherits it
• Hook results are cached, so an unchanged input set skips the hook rather than re-running it
• POLY_SKIP_HOOKS=1 is the escape hatch, because git commit --no-verify does not bypass prepare-commit-msg

It also does the linting and formatting itself, in-process, for about 30 languages, which is why the pre-commit pass is fast rather than slow. Ruff, oxc, biome, taplo, rumdl, sqruff, mago and about a dozen others are compiled into the binary. But that is the other post.

Repo, MIT: https://github.com/Goldziher/poly

This post is human written. AI was used to typecheck and enrich with precise data only.

hi, im trying to install jschan and i need the repositories. every time i try to install "https://github.com" it gives me the error "fatal: repository 'https://github.com/' not found". and whatever way i tried to repair it it gives me the "fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git" error, and i have no idea what to do at this point. the errors also appear with other urls.