A better pull request • Hacker News Board

Re: A better pull request

#41

Post by sbilstein » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

rubiquity wrote: post #33

Solution: Don't ever merge branches using a web GUI. Do the merge locally and then push to master. For the past couple of years I've only used GitHub's web-based PR tool for code discussion/peer review. Don't ever click that "merge" button. Another reason I hate the merge button: It creates an extra commit solely for the merge.

Yea same here. I stopped using github's PR for similar reasons since I always rebase onto master locally and compare that diff. Seems like the bitbucket feature is emulating this which sounds like a great improvement to me.

Re: A better pull request

#42

Post by serve_yay » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

legomaster wrote: post #37

city41 wrote: post #14

I agree this is a better way to look at pull requests, but I'm surprised it's as much of a problem as the post implies. For us, whenever we do a pull request, we always rebase against the latest master first. That can be a cat and mouse game, but it usually isn't. Our repos don't change that rapidly.

Talking to a lot of people at conferences and similar events, rebasing against the target branch before merging is pretty uncommon. Few people think a clean history is that important. Personally I think, rebase + auto-squash/auto-fixit makes the history a lot easier when it's time to look back. It just happens so rarely I wonder if it's really worth the effort I expend on it.

I don't know what it is, but when I try to rebase master into the feature branch, my PR diff ends up littered with commits that aren't part of the PR. Then my reviewers have to wade through a bunch of irrelevant crap to see my changes. I thought the whole point of rebasing was so that wouldn't happen.

Anyway, now I just don't do it anymore. Git is a pain in the ass.

Re: A better pull request

#43

Post by stephenr » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #29

mkinsella wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there that many non-enterprise companies using Bitbucket over Github? Most startups and mid-sized companies I know use Github for private repo hosting.

You'd think more start-ups/mid-size ones would use Bitbucket since they have free private repos. I'm guessing the social allure of Github and its superior repo/pull request UI is what trumps Bitbucket to that end.

I'm pretty sure it's wanting to be one of the 'cool kids' that pulls people to GitHub.

If your decision about where to host your code repos is decided by how pretty the webpage to create pull-requests is, the wrong people are making decisions such in your business.

Re: A better pull request

#44

Post by baldfat » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #25

puls wrote: post #18

This is so telling: GitHub had a blog post yesterday[1] about pull requests and now Atlassian does today with a very similar title. The one from GitHub was about social dynamics and how to work together better, while the one from Atlassian is about technical minutiae. Having used both GitHub and Stash, the difference in focus between the two companies comes across plainly, and these two blog posts only back it up. [1…

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Personal use = BitBucket

WHY? Free private repos unlimited in number of repos only limited on how many can access them.

So all my .config files and anything private goes to BitBucket. Great product for my own use.

Re: A better pull request

#45

Post by pc86 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

bsimpson wrote: post #11

It would make me happy if SublimeGit was better at showing merge conflicts. I feel like I only know they exist when I'm surprised that my build is now broken, and my only resolution is to Find in Project for `>>>>>` and hope I catch all of them.

I've never used SublimeGit (or heard of it before today, to be honest), but if that's how you fix merge conflicts it sounds like a broken product.

Re: A better pull request

#46

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:33 PM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #43

Dirlewanger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think more start-ups/mid-size ones would use Bitbucket since they have free private repos. I'm guessing the social allure of Github and its superior repo/pull request UI is what trumps Bitbucket to that end.

I'm pretty sure it's wanting to be one of the 'cool kids' that pulls people to GitHub. If your decision about where to host your code repos is decided by how pretty the webpage to create pull-requests is, the wrong people are making decisions such in your business.

The differences aren't as superficial as you suggest, in my experience. GitHub is just far more polished. Take commit history as an example: bitbucket makes it uncommonly awkward to step through a series of commit diffs for a given file, whilst github makes it a bit easier (although still not perfect - am I the only one who wants this feature?). Nicer looking doesn't always mean more usable, but there's often a correlation and, in this case, it definitely bears out.

Having said all that, I'm currently using bitbucket for a private work repo because I'm cheap :)

Re: A better pull request

#47

Post by vezzy-fnord » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:36 PM UTC

fenomas wrote: post #7

Seems quite sensible. This, some commentary on forking[1] I ran across the other day, and the way SourceTree is miles beyond github's client, all make me suspect I should be at least trying out bitbucket. But since literally everything I collaborate with is on github, I've not gotten around to it. Am I missing out, or does bitbucket have its own weak spots? [1] http://zbowling.github.io/blog/2011/11/25/github/

Personally I enjoy Bitbucket for two reasons: a) free private repos mean I can use it as a remote backup for my projects, since I'm of the philosophy that you shouldn't be talking too much until you have at least a 0.1 version to show, b) no gamification and distractions.

The gamification and awkward "social coding" environment that GitHub provides just feels forced to me. It's distracting from your work and it makes you focus on pointless minutiae, but worse - it makes other people apply unnecessary weight on the significance of how "active" and "competitive" your profile is. Look at all the people who legitimately believe GitHub should be the be-all-end-all spot for software development, replacing your resume. Look at how Git the DVCS is becoming synonymous with GitHub the (centralized) platform.

With Bitbucket, I have none of that. I can focus on my project without any intervention from the peanut gallery, without all the pointless competition and addictive side jobs that GitHub conditions you into partaking in.

Also, I always found GitHub's issue tracker to be rather underdeveloped. I think it speaks about the "quick hack" culture of software development in general.

Oh, and I think Mercurial needs more attention. I use both hg and git.

Re: A better pull request

#48

Post by jackweirdy » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:39 PM UTC

baldfat wrote: post #44

tootie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Personal use = BitBucket WHY? Free private repos unlimited in number of repos only limited on how many can access them. So all my .config files and anything private goes to BitBucket. Great product for my own use.

If it’s personal stuff, why do you need an upstream?

Assuming it’s for redundancy, why not just copy the folders as part of a normal backup?

Re: A better pull request

#49

Post by SystemOut » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:39 PM UTC

mkinsella wrote: post #27

tootie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Are there that many non-enterprise companies using Bitbucket over Github? Most startups and mid-sized companies I know use Github for private repo hosting.

We use BitBucket since we're a small shop from a developer count standpoint but we have a ton of small repos plus we migrated over a ton of legacy svn repos. GitHub gets expensive real quick when you are in that situation.

Re: A better pull request

#50

Post by bhuga » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

Wouldn't this result in an ever-growing diff? You'd see everything that's gone into master since the branch last rebased/merged master as "changed". When I think about a branch, I want to see changes unique to it, not what's going on in the rest of the codebase.

Showing merge conflicts inline like that is pretty cool, though.