|
Shaggar doesn’t believe in those he’s kind of like the people who rejected CVS in 1998 because it didn’t actively prevent two people from working on the same file like SourceSafe or Perforce
|
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:12 |
|
|
# ? Nov 3, 2024 12:10 |
|
theres no reason to not leave all those commits in other than bullshit ego. nobody gives a poo poo if you wrote something dumb in an initial revision, we care that the history is there so we can go back for context or to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:21 |
|
Shaggar posted:why even bother to commit them locally? if they're worth committing they're worth keeping. i like being able to make transitory commits when i'm trying out new ideas because if an idea isn't working out i can just git stash to put myself back at the last point where things were working ok with a clear slate. this along with the free branching makes git a really useful development tool regardless of its function as source control, which i suspect is part of its appeal. i agree with you about not liking this whole notion of excessively curated commit logs, and force pushing to remote is functionality which should not exist.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:24 |
|
yeah i make many tiny commits that aren't anything more than a save spot. i reference them by timestamp if i need to revert something or go back to an earlier point in the work. these commits are completely worthless to anyone but me, truly, they're just noise. once i have committable work, i commit and push. i never rebase after i've pushed, so the only development history that's lost are my wip commits, which are worthless. DONT THREAD ON ME fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Sep 6, 2018 |
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:26 |
|
basically if i couldn't rewrite history to remove my garbage commits, i would not commit frequently enough and lose work often.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:36 |
|
if i couldn't rewrite history 90% of the commits at work would be wip/a single period/gently caress
|
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:54 |
|
Shaggar posted:theres no reason to not leave all those commits in other than bullshit ego. nobody gives a poo poo if you wrote something dumb in an initial revision, we care that the history is there so we can go back for context or to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited. The only time I ever used it, though, was about a week after I learned that you can put the poop emoji in commit messages and got in trouble for it.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2018 23:59 |
|
especially when i was learning how to use airflow and had to commit every time i deployed
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:02 |
|
Shaggar posted:I have no idea what the use case is for blowing away history in a version control system. like the entire point of the thing is to preserve history. I was wondering why Stymie, who doesn't code or do anything meaningful, was talking about source control for a second there.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:03 |
|
akadajet posted:I was wondering why Stymie, who doesn't code or do anything meaningful, was talking about source control for a second there.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:07 |
|
akadajet posted:code or do anything meaningful
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:13 |
|
Shaggar posted:to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited. nice imaginary use case. no one has ever done this
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:43 |
|
"oh, this change would totally be easier if we revisit the change in the commit titled "wip"!no, not that one, or that one, or ..."
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:45 |
|
can someone explain to me how a commit gets "lost" in git because that has never happened to me i have had to pull poo poo out of the reflog before but that does not mean anything was lost.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:51 |
|
redleader posted:nice imaginary use case. no one has ever done this ikr, why would i want somebody else's bad ideas when i've got so many of my own?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:52 |
|
no they're correct, it's mutually exclusive
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 00:56 |
|
brap posted:can someone explain to me how a commit gets "lost" in git because that has never happened to me i've been able to "lose" stuff via stash in some way, although that's probably just me i don't Git Gud
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:02 |
|
i've heard people say poo poo like "history should be immutable because if i'm chasing a bug i need to ~understand the thought process~ that the original developer went through. if they rewrite history, i won't be able to read the total history to ~understand~ how the bug was introduced". you haven't ever done or needed to do this, gently caress you
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:05 |
|
Beamed posted:no they're correct, it's mutually exclusive yeah, it was just seeing them alongside each other like that was kind of jarring
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:07 |
|
redleader posted:"oh, this change would totally be easier if we revisit the change in the commit titled "wip"!no, not that one, or that one, or ..." When you remove commits like this it becomes less clear the developer had no idea what they were doing and should not be trusted.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:10 |
|
TimWinter posted:When you remove commits like this it becomes less clear the developer had no idea what they were doing and should not be trusted. And yet you're still permitted an "Edit" button.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:18 |
|
Schadenboner posted:And yet you're still permitted an "Edit" button. which i would encourage you to use, along with the delete key! *edit* this is a safespace and the above post is in no way related to your programming and is only intended as an exercise in shitposting
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:19 |
|
How do you update your branch if the master gets new commits before your branch gets merged if you don't have rebase?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:28 |
|
n/m i didn't read the question properly
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:35 |
|
brand engager posted:How do you update your branch if the master gets new commits before your branch gets merged if you don't have rebase? you get merge conflicts which need to be resolved before the merge goes through, same as if you rebased no?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:37 |
|
Shaggar posted:theres no reason to not leave all those commits in other than bullshit ego. nobody gives a poo poo if you wrote something dumb in an initial revision, we care that the history is there so we can go back for context or to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited. being able to make a bunch of garbage commits in a branch no one else cares about that you can throw away later speeds up development because your garbage commits don't need to pass the full suite of tests on the remote server for check-in and you have a 0% chance of impeding anyone else's development or being impeded by someone else's garbage interim commits. being impeded by garbage interim commits breaking poo poo was a problem at my previous workplace with like a couple dozen devs and SVN. this hasn't been a problem w/ git
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:39 |
|
Stringent posted:you get merge conflicts which need to be resolved before the merge goes through, same as if you rebased no? I meant in the commit history sense. If your branch's history differs from the master branch you won't be allowed to merge it to master. Rebase fixes that by putting the new commits from master into your branch before the commits that are unique to that branch.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:45 |
|
Ah, I usually just pull from master before opening a PR and leave a merge commit for that.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:48 |
|
I guess you could do a soft reset back to the spot where the histories diverge and stash your changes before pulling the new stuff from master, but that would squash every commit you made on that branch into one.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 01:48 |
|
Shaggar posted:theres no reason to not leave all those commits in other than bullshit ego. nobody gives a poo poo if you wrote something dumb in an initial revision, we care that the history is there so we can go back for context or to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited. Unironically completely agree with shaggar.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 02:04 |
|
I've actually used git bisect a few times and it helps to generally have commits that work and build so you can properly test things. Aside from that welp
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 02:15 |
|
mystes posted:To be fair: To be double fair: quote:id·i·o·mat·ic If the overly verbose, cumbersome bullshit in Go is "natural to a native speaker" then native Go speakers are maybe incomprehensible shitheads.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 02:45 |
|
Shaggar posted:theres no reason to not leave all those commits in other than bullshit ego. nobody gives a poo poo if you wrote something dumb in an initial revision, we care that the history is there so we can go back for context or to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited. this is dumb. bloating the git history with a bunch of scatterbrained commits makes blaming things extremely hard. let each mainline commit represent a finished unit of work (i.e. you fixed a bug, implemented a portion of X feature, etc) so you can actually make sense what makes up a file via its git history
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 03:29 |
|
GenJoe posted:this is dumb. bloating the git history with a bunch of scatterbrained commits makes blaming things extremely hard. let each mainline commit represent a finished unit of work (i.e. you fixed a bug, implemented a portion of X feature, etc) so you can actually make sense what makes up a file via its git history mostly agree, though I will often leave a useful comment on wip commits that complete some logical unit of the work and use rebase -i to fix up down to just the 3 or 4 useful commits from the dozens unusually have in a branch.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 06:11 |
|
jit bull transpile posted:mostly agree, though I will often leave a useful comment on wip commits that complete some logical unit of the work and use rebase -i to fix up down to just the 3 or 4 useful commits from the dozens unusually have in a branch. that's about what i end up with as well.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 06:14 |
|
it's nice we each have personal forks internally so I can force push rebases as much as I need before it gets to pr.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 06:17 |
|
Shaggar posted:why even bother to commit them locally? if they're worth committing they're worth keeping. i prefer to treat local branches as a scratchpad and clean them up with rebase before making work public. the repo doesn't need the pointless history of all the commits i made while solving a problem
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 06:40 |
|
you write one template function in C++ and suddenly your whole world is internal compiler errors when it breaks
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 08:14 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:you write one template function in C++ and suddenly your whole world is internal compiler errors
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 08:27 |
|
|
# ? Nov 3, 2024 12:10 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:you write C++ and suddenly your whole world is errors
|
# ? Sep 7, 2018 09:59 |