301–310 of 407 posts
I guess I can do that with plain commits as well and then rewrite history when I need, but I think having multiple staging levels would be more developer friendly especially in the era of AI coding
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SQLite does it despite using Fossil - their mirror is at https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite Git is so established now that it's sensible for alternative VCS to have a mode where they can imitate the Git protocol - or seven without that you can still checkout the latest version of your repo and git push that on a periodic basis.
Git is not a protocol, it is a data format. That only makes sense when your VCS system is similar enough to git to easily allow converting between the two representations.
The thing about how merges are presented seems orthogonal to how to represent history. I also hate the default in git, but that is why I just use p4merge as a merge tool and get a proper 4-pane merge tool (left, right, common base, merged result) which shows everything needed to figure out why there is a conflict and how to resolve it. I don't understand why you need to switch out the VCS to fix that issue.
This is all good advice, but these days I just ask Claude for solving merge conflicts, and I can't remember it ever going wrong.
Almost all merge conflicts I see in practice are fairly mechanically solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll be honest, as a fairly skilled and experienced programmer who isn't a git expert, I know what HEAD means, but when I'm rebasing I really have no idea. It all seems to work out in the end because my collaborative work is simple and usually 2–3 people only, so I'm never rebasing against a ton of commits I lack context for (because 90% of them are my commits since I'm usually dealing with PRs to my open source proj…
Git leaks a lot of implementation details into its UX. Rebasing is meant to be equivalent to checking out the "base" branch and cherry picking commits onto it. Therefore "ours" during a rebase is the base branch. The meaning of "ours" and "theirs" is always the same, but the "base" of the operation is reversed compared to what you might be used to during merge. Rebasing can be confusing and hard and messy, but once I…
It's interesting that once even C programmers, like Linus, become really experienced, they embrace the wisdom that functional programmers are forced to swallow anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also git store (almost?) all its operations in the reflog. They have identifier like commits so you can reset to them and restore the original state of the working directory (mostly after an automatic rebase gone wrong).
That's the thing, they're not "like commits", they are the actual original commits. It's a history of where the HEAD ref used to be. Eventually those commits will be pruned out of the tree if/when the reflog expires because there is nothing left pointing to them. But otherwise they are normal commits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I avoid this problem by not rebasing.
Hey not every rebase has conflicts. I definitely rebase when there are no conflicts, then merge. When there are conflicts I merge „theirs” into my branch to resolve those so I keep mental model for this side and don’t have to switch. Then rebase then open PR.
* First and most important: turn on rerere.
* Second: merge and resolve all conflicts, commit.
* Third: rebase.
The second step might look redundant, but thanks to rerere git remembers the merge conflict resolution. That makes step 3 have fewer conflicts; and step 2 tends to be easier on me, because we are only reconciling the final outcomes.
(Well, I'm lying: the above is what I used to do. Nowadays I let Claude handle that, and only intervene when it gets too complicated for the bot.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously! I have too many years of software development experience, but I use Visual Studio UX to handle pretty much all git operations. And always merge. I have better things to do in my life than "internalizing" anything that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
I don’t like that approach, because people who work like that commit all kind of crap to repo or cry that GIT ate their homework… Then we have line ending conflicts, file format conflict UTF8-BOM mixes with just UTF8 it makes more work for everyone like crappy PRs. Because of people for who those are things that „don’t matter in grand scheme of things”.
About the line ending conflicts: set up your CI once to complain about those. And help your coworkers set up their editors right once.
Is it a good thing to have merges that never fail? Often a merge failure indicates a semantic conflict, not just "two changes in the same place". You want to be aware of and forced to manually deal with such cases. I assume the proposed system addresses it somehow but I don't see it in my quick read of this.
My understanding of the way this is presented is that merges don't _block_ the workflow. In git, a merge conflict is a failure to merge, but in this idea a merge conflict is still present but the merge still succeeds. You can commit with conflicts unresolved. This allows you to defer conflict resolution to later. I believe jj does this as well? Technically you could include conflict markers in your commits but I don'…
But why is it useful to be able to defer conflict resolution?
I saw in a parallel comment thread people discussing merge commit vs rebase workflow - rebase gives cleaner git history but is a massive pain having to resolve conflicts on every commit since current branch diverged instead of just once on the final result with merge commit.
Is it that? Deferred conflict resolution allows you to rebase but only resolve conflicts at the end?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That still have an issue with the vocabulary. Things like "theirs/our" is still out of touch but it's already better than a loose spatial analogy on some representation of the DAG. Something like base, that is "common base", looks far more apt to my mind. In the same vein, endogenous/exogenous would be far more precise, or at least aligned with the concern at stake. Maybe "local/alien" might be a less pompous vocabul…
After 15 years i still cant remember which is which. I get annoyed every time. Maybe I should invest 15 minutes finally to remember properly
I'm no longer waiting for it whereas everything sound awesome : quite no more merge conflict and patches order free.
So sad it's still not production ready.