• Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I remember learning about how to use this back in the day and what a game changer it was for my workflow.

    Today I like to do all of the commits as I’m working. Maybe dozens or more as I chug along, marking off waypoints rather than logging actual changes. When I’m done a quick interactive rebase cleans up the history to meaningful commits quite nicely.

    The fun part is that I will work with people sometimes who both swear that “rewriting history” is evil and should never be done, but also tell me how useful my commit logs are and want to know how I take such good notes as I go.

    • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Argh. I hate that argument.

      Yes - “Rewriting history” is a Bad Thing - but o argue that’s only on ‘main’ (or other shared branches). You should (IMHO) absolutely rewrite your local history pre-push for exactly the reasons you state.

      If you rewrite main’s history and force your changes everybody else is gonna have conflicts. Also - history is important for certain debugging and investigation. Don’t be that guy.

      Before you push though… rebasing your work to be easily digestible and have a single(ish) focus per commit is so helpful.

      • review is easier since concerns aren’t mixed
      • If a commit needs to be reverted it limits the collateral damage
      • history is easier to follow because the commits tell a story

      I use a stacked commit tool to help automate rebasing on upstream commits, but you can do it all with git pretty easily.

      Anyway. Good on you; Keep the faith; etc etc. :)

    • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Even better, master creating fixup and squash commits and maintain logical commits as you work with git rebase -i --autosquash