121–130 of 366 posts
Wraparound doesn't really matter, as long as it's spaced long apart.
I think the sweet spot in Developer productivity was when we had SVN repos and used git-svn on the client. Commits were all rebased on git level prior to pushing. If you committed something that broke unit tests your colleagues would pass you a really ugly plush animal of shame that would sit on your desk until the next coworker broke the build. We performed code review with a projector in our office jointly looking…
> If you committed something that broke unit tests your colleagues would pass you a really ugly plush animal of shame that would sit on your desk until the next coworker broke the build. We did have an ugly plush animal, but it served more obscure purposes. For blame of broken builds, we had an info screen that counted the number of times a build had passed, and displayed below the name of the person who last broke i…
It's specially cool given that he would always see his employees' f*k-ups as learning opportunities. He would always teach them what went wrong and how to fix it before shaming them in the git history. He always told them he did it to assure they wouldn't forget both the shameful f*k-up + the bit of learning that came along with it. They always laugh it off and understand the boss' intentions. It isn't harsh or anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, git rebase has a very very annoying limitation that git merge doesn't. If you have a branch with, say, masterX + 10 commits, and commit 1 from your branch is in conflict with masterX+1, then when you rebase your branch onto masterX+1, you will have to resolve the conflict 10 times (assuming all 10 commits happen in the same area that had the original conflict). If instead you merge masterX+1 onto your…
You should do reverse rebase(if it makes sense lol) for this. Instead of rebasing branch to master, rebase master to branch. The only downside is that it requires many force push in the branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me that seems messier than a new branch. For one, how are others to know my files are test/scratch/feature branch files? I'd have to use a naming scheme, and some kind of other signal to make sure nobody imports them before they're ready or mistakes them for deployable files - and at that point I'm just replicating a branch!
> and at that point I'm just replicating a branch! Yes. My entire point is that you can always replicate branches with actual, explicit files, and that this is a good thing to do because files are (very often) better than branches. Files plus some editor discipline are essentially equivalent to branches. Files+discipline are better than branches, according to standard unix philosophy: (1) everything is a file, (2) pr…
I want the 'merge' function completely deprecated. I simply don't trust it anymore. If there are no conflicts, you might as well rebase or cherry-pick. If there is any kind of conflict, you are making code changes in the merge commit itself to resolve it. Developer end up fixing additional issues in the merge commit instead of actual commits. If you use merge to sync two branches continously, you completely lose trac…
What I would like to see is a way to enforce fast-forward only merges along with the forced creation of a merge commit that references the same git tree as the HEAD commit of the branch that was just merged. This way, you know which set of commits was in the branch by looking at the parent commits of the merge commit, but the merge commit itself did not involve any automated conflict resolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, git rebase has a very very annoying limitation that git merge doesn't. If you have a branch with, say, masterX + 10 commits, and commit 1 from your branch is in conflict with masterX+1, then when you rebase your branch onto masterX+1, you will have to resolve the conflict 10 times (assuming all 10 commits happen in the same area that had the original conflict). If instead you merge masterX+1 onto your…
In your example, you pretty much have to change the same line, or neighbouring line, those 10 times to end in that scenario. If it's just somewhere else in the file, git auto-merging will handle it just fine. It seems like a very contrived example to me. We have been running rebase/fast-forward only for close to 10 years now, and I have never experienced anything that unfortunate.
If every error in your system needs a separate entry in the error enum, or every change needs an entry in the changelog - loads of changes will try to modify the last line of the file.
I want the 'merge' function completely deprecated. I simply don't trust it anymore. If there are no conflicts, you might as well rebase or cherry-pick. If there is any kind of conflict, you are making code changes in the merge commit itself to resolve it. Developer end up fixing additional issues in the merge commit instead of actual commits. If you use merge to sync two branches continously, you completely lose trac…
I think merge is great, having a “unit” for a feature branch being integrated is nice and not all things can be done in commits which are individually justifiable. The ability to bisect cleanly through the first ancestor is precious. I do agree that resolving conflicts in merges is risky though. It can make sense when merging just one way between permanent branch (e.g. a 1.x branch into a 2.x), but as soon as cross m…
How do you do otherwise, though? Or is your workflow a combination of rebases and merges? Continual rebasing of the feature branch onto `main` and then a final merge commit when it's ready to go?
I want the 'merge' function completely deprecated. I simply don't trust it anymore. If there are no conflicts, you might as well rebase or cherry-pick. If there is any kind of conflict, you are making code changes in the merge commit itself to resolve it. Developer end up fixing additional issues in the merge commit instead of actual commits. If you use merge to sync two branches continously, you completely lose trac…
Unfortunately, git rebase has a very very annoying limitation that git merge doesn't. If you have a branch with, say, masterX + 10 commits, and commit 1 from your branch is in conflict with masterX+1, then when you rebase your branch onto masterX+1, you will have to resolve the conflict 10 times (assuming all 10 commits happen in the same area that had the original conflict). If instead you merge masterX+1 onto your…
I wish it works like merge, or exist a way to merge, resolve conflict, rebase?