Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Git commands I run before reading any code

piechowski.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 546 posts

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#21

Post by Aachen »

theshrike79 wrote: post #11
seba_dos1 wrote: post #8

> If the team squashes every PR into a single commit, this output reflects who merged, not who wrote. Squash-merge workflows are stupid (you lose information without gaining anything in return as it was easily filterable at retrieval anyway) and only useful as a workaround for people not knowing how to use git, but git stores the author and committer names separately, so it doesn't matter who merged, but rather wheth…

Can you explain to me (an avid squash-merger) what extra information do you gain by having commits that say "argh, let's see if this works", "crap, the CI is failing again, small fix to see if it works", "pushing before leaving for vacation" in the main git history? With a squash merge one PR is one commit, simple, clean and easy to roll back or cherry-pick to another branch.

If someone uses git commits like the save function of their editor and doesn't write messages intended for reading by anyone else, it makes sense to want to hide them

For other cases, you lose the information about why things are this way. It's too verbose to //comment on every like with how it came to be this way but on (non-rare in total, but rare per line) occasion it's useful to see what the change was that made the line be like this, or even just who to potentially ask for help (when >1 person worked on a feature branch, which I'd say is common)

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#22

Post by traceroute66 »

theshrike79 wrote: post #13
traceroute66 wrote: post #9

> The 20 most-changed files in the last year. The file at the top is almost always the one people warn me about. What a weird check and assumption. I mean, surely most of the "20 most-changed files" will be README and docs, plus language-specific lock-files etc. ? So if you're not accounting for those in your git/jj syntax you're going to end up with an awful lot of false-positive noise.

Why would you touch the README file hundreds of times a year? You're right about package.json, pnpm-lock etc though, but those are easy to filter out if the project in question uses them.

> Why would you touch the README file hundreds of times a year?

You're right, perhaps I should have said CHANGELOG etc.

Although some projects e.g. bump version numbers in README or add extra one-liner examples ....

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#23

Post by zaphirplane »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #18
theshrike79 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain to me (an avid squash-merger) what extra information do you gain by having commits that say "argh, let's see if this works", "crap, the CI is failing again, small fix to see if it works", "pushing before leaving for vacation" in the main git history? With a squash merge one PR is one commit, simple, clean and easy to roll back or cherry-pick to another branch.

These commits reaching the reviewer are a sign of either not knowing how to use git or not respecting their time. You clean things up and split into logical chunks when you get ready to push into a shared place.

What are examples of better ones. I don’t get the let me show the world my work and I’m not a fan of large PR

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#25

Post by aa-jv »

Great tips, added to notes.txt for future use ..

Another one I do, is:

    $alias gss='git for-each-ref --sort=-committerdate'

    $gss

    ce652ca83817e83f6041f7e5cd177f2d023a5489 commit refs/heads/project-feature-development
    ce652ca83817e83f6041f7e5cd177f2d023a5489 commit refs/remotes/origin/project-feature-development
    1ef272ea1d3552b59c3d22478afa9819d90dfb39 commit refs/remotes/origin/feature/feature-removal-from-good-state
    c30b4c67298a5fa944d0b387119c1e5ddaf551f1 commit refs/remotes/origin/feature/feature-removal
    eda340eb2c9e75eeb650b5a8850b1879b6b1f704 commit refs/remotes/origin/HEAD
    eda340eb2c9e75eeb650b5a8850b1879b6b1f704 commit refs/remotes/origin/main
    3f874b24fd49c1011e6866c8ec0f259991a24c94 commit refs/heads/project-bugfix-emergency
    ...
This way I can see right away which branches are 'ahead' of the pack, what 'the pack' looks like, and what is up and coming for future reference ... in fact I use the 'gss' alias to find out whats going on, regularly, i.e. "git fetch --all && gss" - doing this regularly, and even historically logging it to a file on login, helps see activity in the repo without too much digging. I just watch the hashes.

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#27

Post by yokoprime »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #18
theshrike79 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain to me (an avid squash-merger) what extra information do you gain by having commits that say "argh, let's see if this works", "crap, the CI is failing again, small fix to see if it works", "pushing before leaving for vacation" in the main git history? With a squash merge one PR is one commit, simple, clean and easy to roll back or cherry-pick to another branch.

These commits reaching the reviewer are a sign of either not knowing how to use git or not respecting their time. You clean things up and split into logical chunks when you get ready to push into a shared place.

Haha, good luck working with a team with more than 2 people. A good reviewer looks at the end-state and does not care about individual commits. If im curious about a specific change i just look at the blame.

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#28

Post by seba_dos1 »

arnorhs wrote: post #15
seba_dos1 wrote: post #8

> If the team squashes every PR into a single commit, this output reflects who merged, not who wrote. Squash-merge workflows are stupid (you lose information without gaining anything in return as it was easily filterable at retrieval anyway) and only useful as a workaround for people not knowing how to use git, but git stores the author and committer names separately, so it doesn't matter who merged, but rather wheth…

The author is talking about the case where you have coherent commits, probably from multiple PRs/merges, that get merged into a main branch as a single commit. Yeah, I can imagine it being annoying that sqashing in that case wipes the author attribution, when not everybody is doing PRs against the main branch. However, calling all squash-merge workflows "stupid" without any nuance.. well that's "stupid" :)

I don't think there's much nuance in the "I don't know --first-parent exists" workflow. Yes, you may sometimes squash-merge a contribution coming from someone who can't use git well when you realize that it will just be simpler for everyone to do that than to demand them to clean their stuff up, but that's pretty much the only time you actually have a good reason to do that.

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#29

Post by croemer »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #18
theshrike79 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain to me (an avid squash-merger) what extra information do you gain by having commits that say "argh, let's see if this works", "crap, the CI is failing again, small fix to see if it works", "pushing before leaving for vacation" in the main git history? With a squash merge one PR is one commit, simple, clean and easy to roll back or cherry-pick to another branch.

These commits reaching the reviewer are a sign of either not knowing how to use git or not respecting their time. You clean things up and split into logical chunks when you get ready to push into a shared place.

What if the shared place is the place where you run a bunch of CI? Then you push your work early to a branch to see the results, fix them etc.

Re: Git commands I run before reading any code

#30

Post by Jenk »

palata wrote: post #4
pzmarzly wrote: post #3

Jujutsu equivalents, if anyone is curious: What Changes the Most jj log --no-graph -r 'ancestors(trunk()) & committer_date(after:"1 year ago")' \ -T 'self.diff().files().map(|f| f.path() ++ "\n").join("")' \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20 Who Built This jj log --no-graph -r 'ancestors(trunk()) & ~merges()' \ -T 'self.author().name() ++ "\n"' \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr Where Do Bugs Cluster jj log --no-grap…

To me, it makes jujutsu look like the Nix of VCSes. Not meaning to offend anyone: Nix is cool, but adds complexity. And as a disclaimer: I used jujutsu for a few months and went back to git. Mostly because git is wired in my fingers, and git is everywhere. Those examples of what jujutsu can do and not git sound nice, but in those few months I never remotely had a need for them, so it felt overkill for me.

Tbf you wouldn't use/switch to jj for (because of) those kind of commands, and are quite the outlier in the grand list of reasons to use jj. However the option to use the revset language in that manner is a high-ranking reason to use jj in my opinion.

The most frequent "complex" command I use is to find commits in my name that are unsigned, and then sign them (this is owing to my workflow with agents that commit on my behalf but I'm not going to give agents my private key!)

    jj log -r 'mine() & ~signed()'

    # or if yolo mode...

    jj sign -r 'mine() & ~signed()'
I hadn't even spared a moment to consider the git equivalent but I would humbly expect it to be quite obtuse.
Post reply on HN