Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
eschaton
Mar 7, 2007

Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?
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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shaggar
Apr 26, 2006
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.

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

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.

DONT THREAD ON ME
Oct 1, 2002

by Nyc_Tattoo
Floss Finder
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

DONT THREAD ON ME
Oct 1, 2002

by Nyc_Tattoo
Floss Finder
basically if i couldn't rewrite history to remove my garbage commits, i would not commit frequently enough and lose work often.

Corla Plankun
May 8, 2007

improve the lives of everyone
if i couldn't rewrite history 90% of the commits at work would be wip/a single period/gently caress

Ellie Crabcakes
Jan 31, 2008

Stop emailing my boyfriend Gay Crungus

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.
It can be a reasonable middle-ground between "commit early and often" and being able to actually roll back without having to dig through 5,000 "ok, maybe try this?" commit messages

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.

Corla Plankun
May 8, 2007

improve the lives of everyone
especially when i was learning how to use airflow and had to commit every time i deployed

akadajet
Sep 14, 2003

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.

Ellie Crabcakes
Jan 31, 2008

Stop emailing my boyfriend Gay Crungus

akadajet posted:

I was wondering why Stymie, who doesn't code or do anything meaningful, was talking about source control for a second there.
Flash back to a couple of days ago, when I was surprised when Stymie said they liked something.

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

akadajet posted:

code or do anything meaningful

:thunk:

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Shaggar posted:

to retrieve aborted designs that should be revisited.

nice imaginary use case. no one has ever done this

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
"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 ..."

brap
Aug 23, 2004

Grimey Drawer
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.

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

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?

Beamed
Nov 26, 2010

Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.



no they're correct, it's mutually exclusive

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

brap posted:

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.

i've been able to "lose" stuff via stash in some way, although that's probably just me i don't Git Gud

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
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

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

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

TimWinter
Mar 30, 2015

https://timsthebomb.com

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.

Schadenboner
Aug 15, 2011

by Shine

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.

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

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

brand engager
Mar 23, 2011

How do you update your branch if the master gets new commits before your branch gets merged if you don't have rebase?

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.
n/m i didn't read the question properly

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

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?

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

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.
having a bunch of garbage worthless commits makes looking at the history of the project and its changes very painful. trying to rollback functionality or use git bisect or any tooling dealing with the history of the project becomes way more difficult if it's full of interim garbage commits that need to be pieced together to say this is tied to feature X

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

brand engager
Mar 23, 2011

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.

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.
Ah, I usually just pull from master before opening a PR and leave a merge commit for that.

brand engager
Mar 23, 2011

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.

Mao Zedong Thot
Oct 16, 2008


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.

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

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

Finster Dexter
Oct 20, 2014

Beyond is Finster's mad vision of Earth transformed.

mystes posted:

To be fair:

To be double fair:

quote:

id·i·o·mat·ic
ˌidēəˈmadik
adjective
1. using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker.

If the overly verbose, cumbersome bullshit in Go is "natural to a native speaker" then native Go speakers are maybe incomprehensible shitheads.

GenJoe
Sep 14, 2010


Rehabilitated?


That's just a bullshit word.

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

The MUMPSorceress
Jan 6, 2012


^SHTPSTS

Gary’s Answer

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.

Stringent
Dec 22, 2004

The internet is the universal sewer.

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.

The MUMPSorceress
Jan 6, 2012


^SHTPSTS

Gary’s Answer
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.

Toady
Jan 12, 2009

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

Luigi Thirty
Apr 30, 2006

Emergency confection port.

you write one template function in C++ and suddenly your whole world is internal compiler errors when it breaks

eschaton
Mar 7, 2007

Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

Luigi Thirty posted:

you write one template function in C++ and suddenly your whole world is internal compiler errors when it breaks

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Luigi Thirty posted:

you write C++ and suddenly your whole world is errors

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply