Oh shit, git (2016)
ohshitgit.com
Oh shit, git (2016)
1–10 of 280 posts
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#2> I committed and immediately realized I need to make one small change!
I think it might be nice to add a disclaimer saying that this is not advisable if you've already pushed the code. Suck it up and make a new commit–don't rewrite public Git history.
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#3> I committed and immediately realized I need to make one small change! I think it might be nice to add a disclaimer saying that this is not advisable if you've already pushed the code. Suck it up and make a new commit–don't rewrite public Git history.
This is indeed a job for git revert, push/pr, check out a new branch then revert the revert with better messaging :)
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#4> I committed and immediately realized I need to make one small change! I think it might be nice to add a disclaimer saying that this is not advisable if you've already pushed the code. Suck it up and make a new commit–don't rewrite public Git history.
I think changing history is fine on feature branches that only you are working on, though. IMO the benefits of keeping commit history clean outweigh the cost of having to push with "--force".
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#5Git is not hard. It's very simple. But people learn it the wrong way. You have to learn it from the DAG up. If you cannot grasp how the DAG works you'll forever be reading and writing articles like this one which do not help you to learn.
This is a horrible article. You should not bookmark it or use it. If you're not a programmer, you shouldn't use git. If you are a programmer, do yourself a favour and spend a day going through something like this: https://wyag.thb.lt/
It will make you better at git and better at programming. Git is a powerful tool and you need to learn how to use it. Imagine if people read articles like this one instead of learning how to drive.
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#6> I committed and immediately realized I need to make one small change! I think it might be nice to add a disclaimer saying that this is not advisable if you've already pushed the code. Suck it up and make a new commit–don't rewrite public Git history.
I find it okay to rewrite public history in short lived feature branches. It’s typically your branch after all.
So it would change your advice to: Don’t rewrite public Git history unless you can assume it’s read only.
Patches for Linux get rewritten all the time till they are finally merged.
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#7Git is not hard. It's very simple. But people learn it the wrong way. You have to learn it from the DAG up. If you cannot grasp how the DAG works you'll forever be reading and writing articles like this one which do not help you to learn. This is a horrible article. You should not bookmark it or use it. If you're not a programmer, you shouldn't use git. If you are a programmer, do yourself a favour and spend a day go…
What's a DAG?
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#8Git is not hard. It's very simple. But people learn it the wrong way. You have to learn it from the DAG up. If you cannot grasp how the DAG works you'll forever be reading and writing articles like this one which do not help you to learn. This is a horrible article. You should not bookmark it or use it. If you're not a programmer, you shouldn't use git. If you are a programmer, do yourself a favour and spend a day go…
What's a DAG?
Directed acyclic graph. Basically each git commit points to zero or more parent commits (usually one, zero for root commits, more than one for merge commits) and that forms a DAG.
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#9Git is not hard. It's very simple. But people learn it the wrong way. You have to learn it from the DAG up. If you cannot grasp how the DAG works you'll forever be reading and writing articles like this one which do not help you to learn. This is a horrible article. You should not bookmark it or use it. If you're not a programmer, you shouldn't use git. If you are a programmer, do yourself a favour and spend a day go…
What's a DAG?
Re: Oh shit, git (2016)
#10> I committed and immediately realized I need to make one small change! I think it might be nice to add a disclaimer saying that this is not advisable if you've already pushed the code. Suck it up and make a new commit–don't rewrite public Git history.
I force-push all the time in my feature branches. It's expected. If I'm using `git commit --fixup` and `git rebase -i origin/master --autosquash` that feature branch is going to come out clean and nice in the merge commit if I force push to my feature branch.