Programmer Humor

19501 readers

1249 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1097

My Git Knowledge (lemm.ee)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

177 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I find the "clean history" argument so flawed.

Sure, if you're they type to micro commit, you can squash your branch and clean it up before merging. We don't need a dozen "fixed tests" commits for context.

But in practice, I have seen multiple teams with the policy of squash merging every branch with 0 exceptions. Even going so far as squash merging development branches to master, which then lumps 20 different changes into a single commit. Sure, you can always be a git archeologist, check out specific revisions, see the original commits, and dig down the history over and over, to get the original context of the specific change you're looking into. But that's way fucking more overhead than just looking at an unmanipulated history and seeing the parallel work going on, and get a clue on context at a glance at the network graph.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

you’re they type to micro commit

Thanks for a much shorter and better way to explain this tendency of mine and why I rebase a lot, yoinking this phrase.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Using curated commits to optimize for pull request reviewability is highly underrated. Liberal use of interactive rebasing to 'tell a story', essentially.