Re: [git-users] git with "bumper lanes" for basic users
Hi Nate, Check out gitless: https://gitless.com/ I can't remember if I read about it in this group or in the main Git mailing list, but it looked intriguing. The intro to gitless says: "Gitless is a version control system built on top of Git. Many people complain that Git is hard to use. We think the problem lies deeper than the user interface, in the concepts underlying Git. Gitless is an experiment to see what happens if you put a simple veneer on an app that changes the underlying concepts." Good luck! On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:51 AM wrote: > Hello git community! > > I wanted to reach out to suggest an idea I had for the git community. > Apologies if this has already been discussed or this is not the right place > for this discussion. Quick background- I am a intermediate level developer > mostly on web and python that has been using git for 2-3 years on projects > with only 1-3 developers collaborating. > > PROBLEM: I understand that if you do everything correctly in git and > follow all the norms everything works fine. But, even after 2-3 years using > git I still sometimes take a wrong step and find myself in a situation that > would be so complex to get back to where I was a few minutes ago, that I > end up just deleting the entire repo and recloning from GitHub. This seems > absolutely crazy to me. I also hear more experienced developers doing the > same thing, so I don’t think I’m alone here. I understand that “simpler” > version-control systems have their own issues and that git's complexity is > not frivolous. However… > > Wouldn’t it be great if there was a constrained version of git that you > knew would NEVER let you get into those situations? > > SOLUTION: The idea I wanted to discuss is to fork git and create a “light” > version that constrains the functionality to avoid common pitfalls that I > and other users tend to get into (with some tradeoffs on functionality, of > course). The idea would involve two steps to figure out how to best design > such a system. > > Step 1 would be to create an aggressively constrained version that may not > be very usable but would completely solve this problem. We would need to > analyze user stories and eliminate all paths to “traps” that people get > themselves into. Then, we would eliminate all paths that led to those > “traps” regardless of how much it crippled the actual usefulness of git > (don’t worry, we’ll add it back in later). An extreme option for this first > step would be to not let anyone checkout any other branches or commits, for > example. > > Step 2 would be to add certain features back in that were axed when > idiot-proofing from Step 1. Only features that are absolutely necessary for > the majority of use cases for simple projects with low complexity in terms > of collaboration / workflows would be added back in. Furthermore, we would > not add them back in fully. We would develop new workflows that would be > more constrained and only allow a more narrow set of user experience flows > with low likelihood of landing in high complexity situations. For example, > perhaps you could checkout previous commits but you were not allowed to > change anything, or any changes were by default ignored and thrown away > when you switch back to head. I know most people find it difficult to > remove features and functionality, but this is a situation where the > existence of too many features and options is making the product unusable > for a specific set of users (newbies, low complexity situations, etc.). > > If anyone else has similar thoughts or would also like to see something > like this (or if you know of someone that has already done this) let me > know! > > Cheers, > Nate > > > Nate Jacobs > Mobile Platform Manager > Office of Information Technology, UCLA > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Git for human beings" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Rick Umali / www.rickumali.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Re: setup git over http
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 1:58:33 AM UTC-5, Vivek Patil wrote: > But I want my own on AWS only with http or ssh option line github > Yes. With GitLab community edition (https://about.gitlab.com/downloads/), I believe that is what you will have. You would install GitLab on an AWS server, and then make that server available to your audience. Good luck! -- Rick Umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Re: setup git over http
If you need your own 'server', then I recommend GitLab (https://about.gitlab.com/). They have a community edition (free) that implements a Git UI and server similar to GitHub. Good luck! -- Rick Umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: setup git over http
Hello, On Wednesday, December 7, 2016, Vivek Patil wrote: > > I want to setup Git server over HTTP on AWS. > I checked "https://git-scm.com/docs/git-http-backend; but not > understanding as I am newer. Please guide me step by step. > > I understand you are new, and that you want step-by-step for Git HTTP Backend, but I wanted you (and this group) to be aware that AWS has an offering called CodeCommit. I haven't used it yet, but it seems compelling because it uses Git. https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/ -- Rick Umali / https://www.manning.com/books/learn-git-in-a-month-of-lunches -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Beginner Git Book Half-Off (Ad, Promotion)
Manning Publications has a beginner's book on Git titled "Learn Git in a Month of Lunches". This book is on sale for half-off today (November 28, 2016). Visit: https://www.manning.com/dotd/ Thank you! -- Rick Umali / www.rickumali.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Try as I might, I just don't understand git. Can anyone please help me out?
Hello Everyone, On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Nelson Efrain A. Cruz <nea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Have you read the pro git book? It's a really good and high quality book, it > sure will be better than a tutorial. It goes from the basics to really deep > subjects. In addition to Pro Git (Scott Chacon), I'd also recommend a few books from Manning Publications: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches and Git in Practice. I wrote that first book, and it's tutorial-based, and geared for people starting out with Git. The other book is by Mike McQuaid, who's the lead developer for Homebrew, a large Open Source package management project (for Mac users). His book is for intermediate to advanced users. https://www.manning.com/books/learn-git-in-a-month-of-lunches https://www.manning.com/books/git-in-practice Good luck! -- Rick Umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Beginner Git Book Half-Off (Ad, Promotion)
Hello, I've been writing a book about Git aimed at beginners. It's called Learn Git in a Month of Lunches, and it is from Manning Publications. Today, June 10, 2015, the book is half-off with the coupon code 'dotd061015au'. For those interested, please visit: http://www.manning.com/umali Thank you! -- Rick Umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: Path nomenclature in Git
Hi John, On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, John McWilliam wrote: 1. I am a total beginner here and am constantly seeing referals to ~/FileName This is obviously shorthand for something but what? Is it the location of the Git program directory or perhaps my working tree. How can I define this? The ~ symbol is the tilde symbol. It is shorthand for your home directory. To get to your home directory, on UNIX, type cd. This is shorthand for change directory, and if you type cd and press return, by default it will put you into your home directory. You cannot define ~. 2. Is the use of SSH keys necessary or can this be bypassed. To date I have tried unsuccessfully to generate private and public keys using Putty? Using SSH keys can be bypassed. If you're using GitHub, for example, use the clone URL that start with HTTPS, instead of the one that start with git@github. You'll be obliged to enter your GitHub credentials for certain operations. Good luck! -- Rick Umali / Author: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches / www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: Install git on Linux Server
Hello Alexander, On Thursday, December 4, 2014, you wrote: So, I wonder if there is any way of installing git in my Linux server and don't have any sort of interaction with www.github.com? My ideal is to have a normal server repository source control in my Linux box and a git client installed in my windows machine. How can I achieve that? Could you guys please point some manual, link, step by step process on how to achieve the server configuration and/or the client app to work with my server? Yes, you can install Git on your Linux server, and by default it will not have any sort of interaction with GitHub. There are lots of ways to establish a Git 'server' on your Linux machine that your Windows machine can connect to (provided they can see each other on the network). I'll highlight two. The most primitive and raw mechanism is git daemon, which is part of Git. To learn about it, you can visit the git daemon manual page: https://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git-daemon.html But I had more success following this tutorial: http://railsware.com/blog/2013/09/19/taming-the-git-daemon-to-quickly-share-git-repository/ On the other end of the spectrum, a more full-blown GitHub-like solution is to use GitLab. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/install/installation.md I installed this on my 32-bit Linux box with a bit of manual effort, though if I had a 64-bit machine I could have used an all-in-one installation. GitLab provides not just Git hosting, but also user-management, SSH key management, and a Wiki. Be warned though: it's got a lot of software under its hood (Ruby, MySQL/postgres, Redis). After installing either of these, then you'll have to set up the connection to your Git server via git remote or git clone on your Windows machine. You're at the start of a lot of learning, so good luck! Rick Umali / Author: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches / http://www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: Question about chapter 3.1 Git Branching - Branches in a Nutshell in git docu
On Friday, November 14, 2014 9:22:25 AM UTC-5, Axel Magard wrote: either I still didn't grasp it or there is a mistake in chapter 3.1 3.1 Git Branching - Branches in a Nutshell (http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Branching-Branches-in-a-Nutshell) The last figure on that page shows that branch 'master' and HEAD are pointing to patch 87ab2, branch 'testing' to c2b9e. But the output from git log --oneline --decorate --graph --all shows this: * c2b9e (HEAD, master) made other changes | * 87ab2 (testing) made a change |/ * f30ab add feature #32 - ability to add new formats to the * 34ac2 fixed bug #1328 - stack overflow under certain conditions * 98ca9 initial commit of my project Shouldn't it look like this ? * 87ab2 (HEAD, master) made a change | * c2b9e (testing) made other changes |/ * f30ab add feature #32 - ability to add new formats to the * 34ac2 fixed bug #1328 - stack overflow under certain conditions * 98ca9 initial commit of my project Yes, Alex, I agree with you that there's a mismatch. The testing pointer (branch) changes from 87ab2 to c2b9e between the diagrams labeled HEAD moves when you checkout (next to last figure) and Divergent history (last figure). I believe the git log is correct. Rick Umali / Author: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches / www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: How to recover from a Detached Head
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:41:42 AM UTC-4, Anthony Berglas wrote: I am trying to do something really simple. I want to commit local changes to a remote repository. But along the way other developers modified the remote. This appears to be very difficult to do in Git. You can modify the remote by using git push. It's not too difficult, but it can be confusing! When I finished my changes I did a commit -a. All good. But then the push failed. git fetch ok. So I tried to checkout the origin/master. That gave me a detached head, even though it looked like I was on head. It said create a branch so I created abtmp (I do not actually want any branches). Then merged origin/master back into abtmp (which seems the wrong way). Believe it or not, I think you're partially there! One key: the origin/master represents the master on the remote repository. You cannot use git checkout origin/master, because origin/master is a remote-tracking branch. These exist as book marks the where master is on the remote. So now I have the following. What I want is to get rid of abtmp and commit back to origin/master on the remote server. $ git log --oneline --decorate --graph --all * 5e0fcfb (HEAD, abtmp) Merge remote branch 'origin/master' into abtmp |\ | * 944773a (origin/master, origin/HEAD) - shrm has to be optional logically (if s | * 4952f9c - correct to point by default * | 75b9d6d (master) Performace tests |/ * c1106db - replace with st * b046367 - set back further * 5a3ce83 - fixup doc link reference * 2ca8ecf (tag: 7.0e) - this I'm really glad you posted this git log output. It really helps us understand the state of your repository. I read your history like this: Your last work was on 75b9d6d, aka master. When you did the git push, it complained because your master wasn't in sync with the remote. You performed a git fetch, which brought in the commits that were on the remote. Doing git log shows you that the remote's master was 944773a, aka origin/master. Per the 'detached HEAD' message, you learned you needed a branch to work on origin/master. You created the branch abtmp. You then merged abtmp into origin/master, but from the git log output, I believe that abtmp was created while you were on your local master. Do you remember how you created the abtmp branch? I say all this because 5e0fcfb, the abtmp branch, seems to have 944773a (origin/master) and 75b9d6d (master) as its parents. To help further, give us the output of these commands: git branch git log --abbrev-commit --parents -n 1 This should give abtmp as the current branch, and it should say 944773a and 75b9d6d in the commit line. Questions:- 1. How do I fix this up. I believe given the graph output that all you need to do is: git checkout master git merge abtmp This will send master to the same commit as abtmp (because it should be a fast-forward merge), and you can then type: git branch -D abtmp This will delete the abtmp branch. 1. What is the best way to deal with these simple conflicts in future. You're doing it already: git fetch, and then carefully merging origin/master back into your branch. If your concerned or paranoid, you can clone your repository to a separate directory, and try out the steps in your clone. Is there any doc that goes over this clearly. (e.g. not http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Working-with-Remotes which goes over setting up multiple remotes etc. and other cleverness but not the basics.) I'm writing a book that is going over the basics. There are other resources out there, though. Search for git merge, git branch, and remote-tracking branches. Good luck! -- Rick Umali / Author: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches / www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: git staged deletes can disappear
On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Paul Whipp wrote: I had a real case of this happening and causing confusion. Not sure it if is a bug. This is using git 1.9.1. In short, if you checkout a repo where a file staged for deletion has already been deleted, the staged deletion disappears permanently. When you return to the branch where you made the deletion, it is as if the change has been commited. Here is the simplest repo I could come up with: I liked that you provided steps that could reproduce the behavior. I went through the steps myself, and saw what you did: after the last 'git checkout master' command, I typed 'git status', and it reported nothing to commit. However, I checked the working directory and observed that foo was still present! Is this what you observed? I do agree that the staged deletion disappeared completely, but I do not think that it was committed, because for me, foo is still in the working directory. I don't know whether this is a bug, but I do feel funny that my staged delete isn't present. I do also report that I was using Git 2.1.1, built from the source. This feels like a corner case, and it may be worth sending a note to the Git mailing list http://git-scm.com/community. Good luck! Rick Umali / Author: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches / www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: UserID and File Fetch/Committ
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:27:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Morgan wrote: When fetching a file on a shared repository, will the file show when and who last committed and when and who last fetched it? Looking at some of the other posts, I just want to confirm that there is no way to lock a file by one user to prevent other users from fetching it...? Ben, Because Git is distributed, a fetched file will not show any meta information. You must use the git log command to find such information. With git log, you can see who last committed a change to the file, but not who has fetched the file. Note that your repository must be up to date, to be sure you're getting accurate information. There is no way for a user to lock a file to prevent other users from fetching that file. Good luck! Rick Umali / Author: Learn Git in a Month of Lunches / www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: git merge --abort deleted my files!
On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:18 AM UTC-4, André Hänsel wrote: I ran git merge to merge a branch. There were some conflicted files. Although they were automatically resolved by git rerere, I still had to add them. I accidentally ran git add . instead of git add -u. I noticed my mistake and ran git merge --abort to start over. To my dismay all my untracked files are gone! Any way to get them back? The git add . should have created Git objects for these untracked files. When you did the git merge --abort, you reset the working directory, deleting those files, but the Git objects should still be hanging around. At least this is what I observed trying to reproduce your issue. If you felt like plumbing the depths of the .git/object directory, try to sort the files in that directory in reverse chronological order. The most recent files are probably the files that were deleted. You can confirm this by using the git show command. Example: if you have this file: .git/objects/96/040df6887716aab2f55043cb6232d1bb01cf9d you should be able to view its contents with git show 96040df. Once you can view them, then save them away in their original files. Ideally you don't have too many files. Let us know if this works! -- Rick Umali / www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: What does this line in git diff mean?
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:31:27 PM UTC-4, juh wrote: 1. What does the line with the word index mean? The line with the index refers to the two 'files' that Git is comparing. In your example, the line index 4202174..6ef3a44 100644 breaks down like this: 4202174 is a/text.md 6ef3a44 is b/text.md 100644 is the 'mode', or permissions of the file The a in a/text.md represents the original file, and the b in b/text.md represents the file in your working directory. You can use git show 4202174 to dump the contents of the original file in case you've forgotten what it looks like. As for b/text.md, it lives only in your working directory, but to get its SHA1 ID number, you can use: git hash-object text.md This should yield a SHA1 ID that starts with 6ef3a44. 2. What does the line with the @@ mean? As pointed out earlier, the @@ are 'hunks'. Another reference I use to describe these diff hunks is here: http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Detailed-Unified.html The hunk describes which lines from the source file and which lines from the destination file are being compared. In @@ -3,3 +3,4 @@, we're comparing from the original file (-), starting at line 3, 3 lines (-3,3) with a target file (+) starting at line 3, going 4 lines. I recommend using graphical tools to look at differences. These numbers are meant for tools that will patch up the files. -- Rick Umali / http://www.manning.com/umali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: git stash three times slower than git commit
Dominik, While researching a git stash question on Stack Overflow http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23433637/git-stash-avoid-on-branch-name-string-in-message/24196203, I learned that git stash is implemented as a shell script. Dig around in the GIT_EXEC_PATH (type git --exec-path to get this path), and locate git-stash. Being a shell script has to be part of the reason why it's slower. Below is the TRACE output git stash: % GIT_TRACE=1 git stash trace: exec: 'git-stash' trace: run_command: 'git-stash' trace: built-in: git 'rev-parse' '--git-dir' trace: built-in: git 'rev-parse' '--show-toplevel' trace: built-in: git 'config' '--get-colorbool' 'color.interactive' trace: built-in: git 'config' '--get-color' 'color.interactive.help' 'red bold' trace: built-in: git 'config' '--get-color' '' 'reset' trace: built-in: git 'update-index' '-q' '--refresh' trace: built-in: git 'diff-index' '--quiet' '--cached' 'HEAD' '--ignore-submodules' '--' trace: built-in: git 'update-index' '-q' '--refresh' trace: built-in: git 'diff-index' '--quiet' '--cached' 'HEAD' '--ignore-submodules' '--' trace: built-in: git 'rev-parse' '--verify' 'HEAD' trace: built-in: git 'rev-list' '--oneline' '-n' '1' 'HEAD' '--' trace: built-in: git 'symbolic-ref' '-q' 'HEAD' trace: built-in: git 'write-tree' trace: built-in: git 'commit-tree' 'db702d6700ab1f5f8ff72d5ca67ccbacb80be2ad' '-p' 'c8fff4c53ab78507c702a404f289d25e18f44614' trace: built-in: git 'read-tree' '--index-output=/home/rick/math2/.git/index.stash.8180' '-m' 'db702d6700ab1f5f8ff72d5ca67ccbacb80be2ad' trace: built-in: git 'diff' '--name-only' '-z' 'HEAD' '--' trace: built-in: git 'update-index' '-z' '--add' '--remove' '--stdin' trace: built-in: git 'write-tree' trace: built-in: git 'commit-tree' 'db702d6700ab1f5f8ff72d5ca67ccbacb80be2ad' '-p' 'c8fff4c53ab78507c702a404f289d25e18f44614' '-p' 'c7c81a46d738539ee5f913cd9830b5d735788b6f' trace: built-in: git 'update-ref' '-m' 'WIP on new_stuff: c8fff4c ' 'refs/stash' '147be634d72247240847ed7aadc8de6519489bec' Saved working directory and index state WIP on new_stuff: c8fff4c trace: built-in: git 'reset' '--hard' HEAD is now at c8fff4c Below is the trace of the same file using git commit. GIT_TRACE=1 git commit -m You know. trace: built-in: git 'commit' '-m' 'You know.' [new_stuff cce5fd5] You know. 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 ba Given the above, you should see that the stash is stored as a commit, but in a separate ref (refs/stash). Peace! On Monday, July 7, 2014 2:59:18 AM UTC-4, Dominik Rauch wrote: Hi! Why is the git stash command three times slower than the git commit command? We've found that out just recently in some performance tests and have wondered what's the huge underlying difference between the commands? Isn't it just like a commit on a temporary branch? Best regards, Dominik Rauch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Re: Unable to get colors with git 2.0 on os x 10.9
Martin, I experienced issues displaying colors on my Mac (with the standard Git installation). For me, the issue was the pager. On my machine, the LESS environment variable had been set to -X (check this with env | grep LESS). I had to set my LESS environment variable to -XR, using: export LESS=-XR -R allows raw control characters to displayed, which enable colors. I set this in my .bash_profile. Another way to eliminate the pager is to run a Git command with the --no-pager switch. Try: % git --no-pager log -10 Do you see colors? If so, then the LESS environment variable may be solution. Good luck! Rick Umali / tech.rickumali.com On Saturday, June 28, 2014 3:33:16 AM UTC-4, Martin H. Andersen wrote: I have installed git 2.0 with Homebrew an changed my $PATH in the .bash_profile to: export PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH so that I don't work with the build in apple git version. This is the git command that should work: *git config --global color.ui true *But nothing happens I have tried all the color settings in the terminal without any effect. Is this a git 2.0 problem or just something? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git for human beings group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
