This is a joke, it modified the commit id
Git-blame-someone-else
91–100 of 100 posts
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#92Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#93I think the problem is "commit". I would like to propose "lets-see-how-things-go-for-a-while" as an alternative.
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#94This is a great example of why you should enable vigilant mode [1] on your GitHub account and set your machine up to GPG sign your commits. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/authenticating-to-github/m...
But if you gpg sign your commit Now all your contributors will have to sign their next commits too. My workmates would hate me if i introduced this to production.
Anyone can choose for themselves whether or not to use gpg. Your choice doesn't affect anyone else.
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious how do you get away with it without anyone noticing. Doesn’t this imply rewriting the master branch? Wouldn’t that cause noticeable issues for everyone else? Or maybe you’re the only active contributor on that codebase (but then who else can you blame?)
It’s not overwriting anything if you use this on all your new commits immediately.
But then you never actually commit anything.
Guess that's middle management then.
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#96Others were to blame for past threads: Git Blame-Someone-Else - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21004193 - Sept 2019 (66 comments) Git-blame-someone-else – Blame someone else for your bad code - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11049993 - Feb 2016 (65 comments)
Does it feel like gardening? Moderating HN that is. It'd have to be one of those "wild gardens" that's mostly the plants doing what they want with a bit of nudging. Pull out a weed here, tie up some branches there, clear the path, give a little extra water to something that didn't get a good chance yet, etc. Sorry for the OT, I was just curious if that analogy resonated.
It's a nice analogy! Or at least a flattering one. Thanks either way :)
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#97Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you gpg sign your commit Now all your contributors will have to sign their next commits too. My workmates would hate me if i introduced this to production.
Why do they have to sign their commits? Their contributions are unverified, as are any commits made in your name without your signature, but they don't have to do anything. You gain the ability to prove that a certain commit came from your machine or someone with full access to it, they don't. To be honest, everyone should be signing their commits in a professional environment. It takes minutes of work to set up and…
Thanks a lot for explaining it !
I’ll start using it then
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you gpg sign your commit Now all your contributors will have to sign their next commits too. My workmates would hate me if i introduced this to production.
Anyone can choose for themselves whether or not to use gpg. Your choice doesn't affect anyone else. https://i.imgur.com/TqbfZaP.png
Thanks a lot for showing it !
Really appreciate it
I’ll give it a try indeed !
Re: Git-blame-someone-else
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you gpg sign your commit Now all your contributors will have to sign their next commits too. My workmates would hate me if i introduced this to production.
It’s not that bad - its just an initial thing to setup then it’s pretty automatic for every commit
Awesome then :D
I’ll start using it
Thanks a lot !