No, Linus Torvalds Never Merges Code On Github!!
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Don't be fooled by the little badge on Github, Linus Torvalds never merges code on the Github platform it is just used as a mirror however if you know some tricks with Git you can certainly pretend like you got something merged.
==========Support The Channel==========
► Patreon: brodierobertson.xyz/patreon
► Paypal: brodierobertson.xyz/paypal
► Liberapay: brodierobertson.xyz/liberapay
► Amazon USA: brodierobertson.xyz/amazonusa
==========Resources==========
Github Pr 1: github.com/torvalds/linux/pul... github.com/torvalds/linux/pul...
Github Pr 2: github.com/torvalds/linux/pul...
Github Pr 3: github.com/torvalds/linux/pul...
Github Pr 4: github.com/torvalds/linux/pul...
Recent Post: github.com/torvalds/linux/pul...
Mastadon Post: social.treehouse.systems/@mar...
=========Video Platforms==========
🎥 Odysee: brodierobertson.xyz/odysee
🎥 Podcast: techovertea.xyz/youtube
🎮 Gaming: brodierobertson.xyz/gaming
==========Social Media==========
🎤 Discord: brodierobertson.xyz/discord
🐦 Twitter: brodierobertson.xyz/twitter
🌐 Mastodon: brodierobertson.xyz/mastodon
🖥️ GitHub: brodierobertson.xyz/github
==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
Profile Picture:
/ supercozman_draws
🎵 Ending music
Track: Debris & Jonth - Game Time [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Debris & Jonth - Game ...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/GameTime
#Linux #OpenSource #FOSS #LinusTorvalds
DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation. - Věda a technologie
My CV is about to get a nice update.
congrats on the offer 😉
My first thought also. Some bastard's gonna show up to a job interview: "So, here are the last fixes I've made to the linux kernel, see what a kick-ass dev I am!" LOL
@@mac10forlife And then his interview is for some js frontend. lol
Of course he doesn't, he invented the Git CLI.
lol
I mean the CLI and all the underlying infrastructure. It's not like he just wrote a wrapper for something else lol
@@some1and297 Very true. My previous comment could've been clearer on that point.
@@MikeU128 ... Even though he doesn't like making software like git (that's how he quickly gave it to someone else)
Another day, another funny Github exploit
Gitlab does absolutely the same thing: if it sees, that branch is actually merged in git, it marks merge request (thats PR in gitlab world) as merged. And its not and exploit or problem, its really nice thing. Sometimes merges must be done locally, for example if signed commits are used (not "signed-off", but gpg-signed, that cant be done through web UI, because that way web UI would have had in possession of cryptographic keys, nullifying the whole point of cryptographic signatures), and that would have been a hassle to push all these buttons to synchronize flows. So these UIs on top of git are just doing the best they can.
Honestly, merge request makes a lot more sense to a newbie than pull request.
I was aware of the feature because I dislike that you cannot `fast-forward` the main branch to merge a PR through the GH ui, therefore I mostly merge things manually in my own repos.
I'm here so early that I only see spam comments from "people" with mostly-bare bum PFPs.
"This conversation is a testament to the power of women's voices in shaping meaningful discourse" so vague
more like a testament to the power of bots and the lack thereof of youtube spam filter
Or a testament of CZcams's failures to block those ass profile pictures! 😂
@felixfourcolor If they start filtering stuff, there will be less "engagement", now they can't do that, can they
@@guiorgy you'd think they would care about fake engagement more than this... doesn't daddy Google want GOOD data?
@@felixfourcolor the youtube spam filter filters my comments just fine 🙄
2:23 GIMP?
Gimphub
I think he met Git.
To be fair "a Github pull request does not actually exist in GIMP" is still most likely a valid statement.
I think I was doing a gimp video just before this
No views after 38 seconds so I guess it's up to me to make the lame jokes.
So why haven't you?
What do no views after seconds mean
you better not. this isn't a pyro video.
Slamon :3
@@joshallen128 It's a joke that used to be funny instead of saying first in a video. They want to say they're early.
But why would the joke also make fun of the content creator? Because that whole shtick is a running gag on a youtube channel. His fans make fun of him, he takes it.
Yes, I was there when the joke was created lol
It would be nice if for some period of time all the Kernel merges would be done by Bickus Dickus on the github. Maybe then github would figure out way to make sure that mr. Bickus Dickus couldn't do that any longer.
Such a great idea for a solution! Seriously! Might get some attention, but then you never know when github's involved, just saying... hahaha
I would have made a separate message/label for pull requests that weren't merged through the interface.
Something along the lines of "merged elsewhere" or "manually merged"/"merged manually"
It's simple to say, but I'm sure I'm sure all of their legacy codebase relies on there only being 1 kind of "merged", so it would probably be an actual nightmare to implement
@@guiorgyNot necessarily, since this only concerns the UI. You could just track PRs that were merged through the UI and mark "merged elsewhere" PRs that do not have a record in that table. This is such a rare situation for most projects that it's probably not worth focusing on, though
Atlassian Bitbucket does this: "So-and-so merged this Pull Request remotely". But I don't see what you're trying to solve by differentiating those merged remotely and those merged in the UI.
I fail to see the problem. A pull request is just asking for the commits on the given branch to be merged into the target branch. It doesn't necessarily imply that you authored the code.
Most people would assume that it does
"Merged outside" as status fixes any misinterpretation.
Otherwise the current UI implies what everybody else thinks: "it says merged by Linus Torvalds"
Amazing video, Brodie, keep it up
Anyways what are these damn bot comments? bro youtube needs to get their act together
Especially since they reuse the same few porn bot profile pictures! You'd think they'd hash those pictures as "blocked for profile pictures" but apparently that's too difficult for Google! 😂
I keep reporting them but they never disappear 😢
I don't know how CZcams doesn't just block that profile pic, it's always the same
@@cameronbosch1213When you start doing that, it turns into a game of whack-a-mole. It doesn't really solve the issue. Do I have the slightest idea how they could do this? No.
@@nikkiofthevalley Does that mean that doing nothing is better? Don't think so 🤷♂️
In Linux, git send-email is used to send patches as email to kernel developers. The email is formatted like a patch, so you can literally merge the email.
git request-pull is used to transfer the merged changes from one maintainer to another (there's a hierarchy). It isn't used much to introduce new features into the kernel like it would on Github.
This is so good that some company implemented send-email on top of pull requests...
expecting people not to be stupid is like expecting to be able to predict when the next person is born who can compare to einstein.
most likely 90% of people are going to be either stupid or not participating in the specific thing your using to meassure with.
Brodiehub
I do not like being tethered to the "cloud" for any reason more than I have to be.
For patches that were posted on the mailing list via "git format-patch" email, you cannot exploit it, as "git am" will change the committer name and timestamp when you merge those patches, resulting in a different hash. If the sender has provided a git remote to pull the patches from, *and* the committer uses it to pull them, it may be possible.
Also, when somebody opens a pull request on your repo, it *does* change the remote branches of your repo (a new remote branch pr/... will be created to make it easier for you to merge it from within your git client), but it does not change the main branch.
This is such a confusing exploit, so explicit merge keywords aren't implemented but implicit PR merging is? That's just dumb.
What do you expect from a microsoft project?
@@no_name4796 Fair, they were the ones that wrote min and max as macros inside the windows.h file.
It's really been this way for some time. I worked on a team in roughly 2013 that manually did most merges at the command line.
Pull Requests were only opened for the review tooling. Almost all of them where closed implicitly by the merge commit into the default branch.
I would argue that you should be able to opt-out of implicit merges if the default branch is using write protection rules.
Github pull requests exist as a specially named branch, I've manually merged the PR branch when it's long lived to resolve the issues in the processand it shows as merged because... well it is merged... it's a funny quirk with linux casue of the lack of use of github but if there is a request and it is granted even through a side channel it makes sense for it to be marked that way?
Honestly, I don't even see this as _bad_ behaviour.
Sure, it somewhat gives a false impression of the pr being merged _on github_ , but the important part, the fact it is merged, is still correct.
Github provides misleading information about the authorship of the code. You don't see the actual author unless you click through to the commit. If this person claimed they were a contributor to the linux kernel and linked to this PR as proof, some nonzero number of people would be fooled. Overall not major, and clearly just a flaw with how Github presents information, but it is amusing.
Do gitlab (and other) also have the same problem?
Gitlab does this too, idk about other code forges
i had something similar happen. for context inhad just taken primeagen git course and i have been doing alot playing with it. i found that it didnt make sense to enforce resolving conflict on github . i later found with gh cli you can take a pull request back to local as a branch and handle merge...
on doing that, i resulted to pushing lcal main to origin which is something i had intended not doing as i had already locked push to main banch on github. I had to open it up , pushed to main then the initl pull request switched to merged and i think got closed automatically too
just as a nonuseful comedic aside, it always makes me laugh to see or hear github. "Git" is an insult in my country. It means "undesirable person".
Torvalds has said himself that both Linux and Git were named after himself. He knows.
@@MasterHigure That makes it funnier, thanks lol
language? Swedish?
@@VADemon The one language I know where "git" has that meaning is British English.
@@MasterHigure This is correct.
I thought that commit hashes include both committer and author and dates. I.e. applying patches from mail list will not result in same hashes.
It does, I'm assuming github interally works with tree hashes, which are part of the commit hash + the metadata. At least that would make sense since you can always track authorship via signatures. But I may be talking out of my rear on this.
The commit hashes *do* include those dates. But GitHub and merging from the mailing list take the commits exactly how they were submitted, without any validation
@@unicodefox I can't believe that merging with "git am" or whatever is not re-applying patches on top of current repo and re-calculate hashes.
What if there are conflicts?
What happens if you create 2 branches and apply patches on each of them?
What will be end result given that both heads will share same hash?...
Okay, i see where this is going.
Pull request name: Make linux UwU again!
I hate it, you hate it, but is going to happen.
Also please for the love of God dont be inspired by this comment.
Too late, my friend
I'm still waiting for the PR 447 on that repository to be merged so I can build the kernel very faster.
Ohhhhhhhhh that's so smart.
I find it amusing that the PR was merged on April Fools
Stop giving me ideas
Brodie in the thumbnail has cat ears
Time to clone Linux 1.0 code and make a pull request for the entire code base
I clicked because I thought brod has cat ears in the thumbnail
hmmm... I was about to ask, "why doesn't somebody just turn turn off pull requests for that project...?", but then I went to check the settings for one of my projects..
it starts with a message that states "When merging pull requests, you can allow any combination of merge commits, squashing, or rebasing. At least one option must be enabled."
so, in plain English, they can't be disabled..(?) :/
you could maybe require tests to pass for pull requests, and then add a custom test that always fails with an explanatory message
@@MatthijsvanDuin There is already a bot that responds to PRs on torvalds/linux with instructions on how to contribute. No one ever tries to merge anything on Github, so this is effectively the same but formatted nicely as a comment instead of a test failure.
I myself often merge github pull requests locally via git. I even have a little script to do all the necessary fetches and merges.
Why? I just dislike how github always adds an empty merge commit, even when a fast-forward is possible.
Yeah, the merge commit serves as a nice reminder of which PRs some changes originated from, but I just don't care about them. I like my git history looking like a straight line.
Correct, mine code is open source, not anymore hub or lab. Handle rather alone.
hilarious!
I'm still amazed you can't just disable the issues panel
You can disable issues, there special checkbox for this in GitHub repo settings.
And linux GH repo already got them disabled, but the stuff in this video happens via Pull Requests and it seems like you can't disable them
@@majohime OK, sorry for using the wrong term, but yes, I would think you can disable that (too).
If I can't be stupid then what can I be?
Wait, you can set the pull request title?
What if someone uses a racist/bad title and lets torvalds merge it? 🤔
torvalds will just tell the truth, that he never uses Github. And thousands of Linux developers will be witnesses to it.
Exactly.
Another reason not to use GitHub.
You will probably get banned on Github for that but yes there's no reason you can't do that
@@BrodieRobertson I know, i would never do such a thing myself. But it's a risk that might have been overlooked.
I wonder how many people are misusing that to pad resumes for people who don't also know that Torvalds ignores that mirror.
There's only a couple of mergers so not too many, on other projects that I can't answer
add virus [merged]
He gets to the point 7 minutes in
They could just disable PRs.
hi
Github is Microsoft. Remember that when you're deciding where to put your software. And then don't put it on Github anymore.
And this is why people don't take the linux community seriously.
And Linus is the biggest figure in Linux community. By your logic nobody takes him seriously and his work is a complete joke
spot the windows user ?
@@TheGeoreyNo, he means individual Linux users such as you who like to talk out of their behind like they know it all.
We abhor windows so obviously we know more than you
Oooooh, he's a real radical, that Torvalds guy. So much for his contributions....
Sounds like a whinny baby who didn't get his lolipop this evening.
Click Bait!!!! Came here for weird YT faces...
Disappointed to learn about Linux and Linus and not see weird YT faces! 😢
/s 😂
9:30 - lmao, of course literally the first comment proves what you're saying exactly wrong.
Listen for 5 more seconds
@@BrodieRobertson I heard, I still think it's hilarious that the first comment undermined you so hard. You couldn't even finish your sentence... The key to any good joke is timing.