281–290 of 546 posts
> How Often Is the Team Firefighting
> git log --oneline --since="1 year ago" | grep -iE 'revert|hotfix|emergency|rollback
> Crisis patterns are easy to read. Either they’re there or they’re not.
I disagree with the last two quoted sentences, and also, they sound like an LLM.
The git blame tip is underrated. People treat it like a gotcha tool but its maybe the fastest way to find the PR/ticket that explains a weird decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand how people can remember all these custom scripting languages. I can’t even remember most git flags, I’m ecstatic when I remember how to iterate over arrays in “jq”, I can’t fathom how people remember these types of syntaxes.
I am convinced that the vast majority of professionals simply don't bother to remember and, ESPECIALLY WITH GIT, just look stuff up every single time the workflow deviates from their daily usage. At this point perhaps a million person-years have been sacrificed to the semantically incoherent shit UX of git. I have loathed git from the beginning but there's effectively no other choice. That said, the OP's commands are…
Yes! We mostly wouldn’t tolerate the complexity and the terrible UX of a tool we use everyday--but there's enough Stockholm Syndrome out there where most of us are willing to tolerate it.
I abhor squash merging for this and a few other reasons. I literally have to go out of my way to re-check out a branch. Someone who wants to use my current branch cannot do so if I merge my changes a month later, because the squash rewrites history, and now git is very confused. I don't get the obsession with "cleaning up the history" as if we're all always constantly running out of storage over 2 more commits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am convinced that the vast majority of professionals simply don't bother to remember and, ESPECIALLY WITH GIT, just look stuff up every single time the workflow deviates from their daily usage. At this point perhaps a million person-years have been sacrificed to the semantically incoherent shit UX of git. I have loathed git from the beginning but there's effectively no other choice. That said, the OP's commands are…
I’ve recently been looking into some tools that provide quick or painless help like pop up snippets with descriptions and cheat sheets, got any recommendations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am convinced that the vast majority of professionals simply don't bother to remember and, ESPECIALLY WITH GIT, just look stuff up every single time the workflow deviates from their daily usage. I wrote a cheat sheet in my notes of common commands, until they stuck in my head and I haven't needed it now for a decade or more. I also lean heavily on aliases and "self-documenting" things in my .bashrc file. Curious h…
I just use Claude Code as a terminal for git these days. It writes up better commit messages than I would write anyway. No more "git commit -m fix"
I love how the author thinks developers write commit messages. All joking aside, it really is a chronic problem in the corporate world. Most codebases I encounter just have "changed stuff" or "hope this works now". It's a small minority of developers (myself included) who consider the git commit log to be important enough to spend time writing something meaningful. AI generated commit messages helps this a lot, if de…
> It's a small minority Is it really a small minority? I have never worked on a project that didn't have commit messages that at least tried to be descriptive (sometimes people fail at it but its very different to an outright "changed stuff"). I don't remember any friend mentioning to me them encountering a work project where the messages were totally neglected either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really strong enough in a post about what to do in a codebase you’re not familiar with. In that situation you’re probably new to the team and organisation and likely to get off on the wrong foot with people if you assume their code “hurts”.
The post is “here’s what I do”, not “here’s what you should do and then confront the team about the results.” It’s just showing you a quick way to get some insights. It’s not even guaranteeing it’s accurate, just showing you some things you might be able to draw some quick conclusions on. I’m not sure why HN attracts this need to poke holes in interesting observations to “prove” they aren’t actually interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people actually share PR as in different people contributing to the same branch? Also I can understand not squashing if the contribution comes from outside the organization. But in that case, I would expect a cleaned up history. But if every contribution is from members of the team, who can merge their own PR, squash merge is an easy way to get a clean history. Especially when most PR should be a single commit.
We do. If we are building out a feature, none of its code is merged into main until it is complete (if this is a big feature, we milestone into mergeable and releasable units). The feature is represented by a Story in Jira and a feature branch for that story. Subtasks in jira are created and multiple developers can pick up the different subtasks. There is a personal branch per subtasks, and PRs are put up against the…
There can be experiment on the side that warrants your approach, but the amounts of merge going back and forth would make this hard to investigate (especially when blaming) I would prefer to have one single commit with a message that describe every contribution.
> One caveat: squash-merge workflows compress authorship. If the team squashes every PR into a single commit, this output reflects who merged, not who wrote. Worth asking about the merge strategy before drawing conclusions. I abhor squash merging for this and a few other reasons. I literally have to go out of my way to re-check out a branch. Someone who wants to use my current branch cannot do so if I merge my change…
And GitHub at least sets the author of the squashed commit as the one who opened the PR, not the one who merged it.
I can definitely see where it wouldn't work well for other workflows but I've had it work well on several teams and it seems easier than trying to get everyone to clean up their commits into nice, clean, well-titled histories before putting up a PR.