31–40 of 49 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes leave merged branches around for quite a while, because I squash them when I merge to master and sometimes when tracking down a bug the ability to bisect very handy.
What made you decide to squash when merging instead of leaving the commits in the history so you can always bisect?
On a related note, git supports incorporating custom commands via executables available in the `PATH` having the naming convention of: git- Where "command name" in this case would be `archive-branch` and could be defined thusly: #!/bin/sh # git-archive-branch git_branch="${1:-$(git branch --show-current)}" git co main && git tag archive/$git_branch $git_branch && git branch -D $git_branch It then could be invoked the…
On a related note, git supports incorporating custom commands via executables available in the `PATH` having the naming convention of: git- Where "command name" in this case would be `archive-branch` and could be defined thusly: #!/bin/sh # git-archive-branch git_branch="${1:-$(git branch --show-current)}" git co main && git tag archive/$git_branch $git_branch && git branch -D $git_branch It then could be invoked the…
How about just
# rename branch to archive/ prefix to indicate it is archived
git branch -m foo-branch archive/foo-branchOn a related note, git supports incorporating custom commands via executables available in the `PATH` having the naming convention of: git- Where "command name" in this case would be `archive-branch` and could be defined thusly: #!/bin/sh # git-archive-branch git_branch="${1:-$(git branch --show-current)}" git co main && git tag archive/$git_branch $git_branch && git branch -D $git_branch It then could be invoked the…
Why is this useful? Why would someone care about typing `git archive-branch` instead of `git-archive-branch`?
I don't see the point of this. A git branch is already a kind of tag. How about just # rename branch to archive/ prefix to indicate it is archived git branch -m foo-branch archive/foo-branch
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hooks only keep honest people honest :) and an LLM will happily clobber a tag and skip hooks while the user just spams “accept”.
That's true for local hooks, but neither a dishonest person nor an LLM can bypass a pre-receive hook on the server (as long as they don't have admin access).
I don't see the point of this. A git branch is already a kind of tag. How about just # rename branch to archive/ prefix to indicate it is archived git branch -m foo-branch archive/foo-branch
I don't see the point of this. A git branch is already a kind of tag. How about just # rename branch to archive/ prefix to indicate it is archived git branch -m foo-branch archive/foo-branch
Branches are expected to change, tags are not. Tags are also mildly harder to change. A tag seems more apt for an archived branch. So I sort of see where OP comes from.