If I understand the logic it uses correctly this will nearly always attach the fixup to the right commit. It's not for me because I do this manually too fluidly but it seems like a good tool.
Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
41–50 of 278 posts
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#42This sounds great,but kind of an anti pattern in git.
I definitely want to have a "fixes" commit on my feature branch. You should do whatever you want on a feature branch so long as your trunk has a clean history.
This sounds like someone wanted to lift a feature of changesets in mercurial into git. I don't think this is safe and probably breaks a lot of people's mental model of git changelogs being an immutable data structure.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#43I'm a huge fan of git absorb. I love tools that do-the-right-thing so I can think less. That is what git absorb is.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#44Just use magit and easily make fixup! commits with like 3 key presses. Even if you don't use emacs keeping it around just to use magit is worth it. Edamagit for vscode users is not as good but it does this particular workflow great.
I use magit. I still use git absorb. The issue for me is not the speed at which I can run the interactive rebase, it is the amount of looking I have to do to find the correct commit to fixup onto in a big stack of commits. git absorb figures that out for me.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#45This sounds great,but kind of an anti pattern in git. I definitely want to have a "fixes" commit on my feature branch. You should do whatever you want on a feature branch so long as your trunk has a clean history. This sounds like someone wanted to lift a feature of changesets in mercurial into git. I don't think this is safe and probably breaks a lot of people's mental model of git changelogs being an immutable data…
At some point the changes are going to get merged in, no? And that that point I would really like the commits to be nice.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#46FWIW, I've been using this alias for the past couple years for fixup commits, and I've been happy with it: > gfx='git commit --fixup $(git log $(git merge-base main HEAD)..HEAD --oneline| fzf| cut -d" " -f1)' It shows you the commits on the current branch and lets you select one via fzf. It then creates the fixup commit based on the commit you selected.
sounds like how magit lets you create fixup commits in emacs
Worse in fact, since magit lets you fixup, squash, or instafix.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#47This seems neat in theory but I would be perpetually concerned that it is going to pull some change I don't mean to commit and put it into something for review. How well does it do at that, anecdotally?
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#48you don't want to shove them all into an opaque commit that says fixes, because you believe in atomic commits. Sure I do. The whole branch will be squashed anyway before it's merged in, and a single "fixes" commit while still on its own branch will be easier to track in a PR for addressing everything pointed out earlier. I mean, don't let me stop anyone from using this or --fixup if this is your flow, but this solves…
Every team is free to choose what works best for them, but IMO always squashing PRs is not a good strategy. Sometimes you do want to preserve the change history, particularly if the PR does more than a single atomic change, which in practice is very common. There shouldn't be a static merge type preference at all, and this should be chosen on a case-by-case basis. At the risk of sounding judgemental, I think this pre…
What are your thoughts on the "ship, show, ask" workflow? [1]
In that workflow, small stuff is simply pushed, which allows PRs to be more single focused and more atomic. Perhaps your only objection is direct pushes to master? I am really curious if that workflow otherwise addresses all of the downsides you stated while still allowing for all PRs to be uniformly rebase-squash merged.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#49I tried using this tool after seeing recommendations for it, but IME it got the parent commit wrong enough times that the work to undo the damage was more than if I had looked up the commit myself and used `--fixup` instead. So I moved back to this manual workflow pretty quickly. I prefer having full control over my commit history, and this tool is too much magic for my taste. I'm sure that it could be improved so th…
I use lazygit for this. Keyboard driven TUI which lets you easily re-order/squash commits with minimum fuss. Being able to see them all laid out means no futzing with identifying the right ids.
I love lazygit so much. I use it all the time, and it's constantly improving my workflow.
Re: Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic
#50The negativity in the comments here is unwarranted in my opinion. I've been using `git absorb` for years and it works amazingly well. I use it in addition to manual fixups. My most common uses of git-absorb, but definitely not the only, are when I submit a PR with multiple commits and it fails CI for whatever reason. If fixing CI requires changes across multiple commits (say, lint violations), then git-absorb will al…
I’ve been using autofixup for this and it’s been ok but not great, it can be quite slow as things grown, and it doesn’t say anything when there was no match so it’s easy to miss. How does absorb surface that?
> Perhaps partially due to how GitHub works.
That’s definitely a major factor, I’d like to use stacked PRs they sound really neat, but GitHub.
Also even with stacked PRs I figure sometimes you’re at the top of the stack and you change things which affect multiple commits / prs anyway, surely in that case you need to fixup other commits than the ToS?