How to end up with 500k commits in your log

Do you use `git stash`? I don't understand your workflow, do you commit to keep a log of your whole line of thought? As in: with your mistakes or failed designs/approaches being backtracked (overwritten/removed, etc.) and keeping an immutable sequence of your line of reasoning?

For me, commits of work in progress are only done on my development branches before I want to push to a remote to save my work in case of my computer failing (or getting lost/stolen, whatever force majeure), I usually write a "WIP: " message that I will squash later on when I have a meaningful commit.

> However, only because of that 'squash and merge' aka 'sculpt a nice history with the emphasis on story' bit. Not doing that is in my opinion and experience completely useless for code.

A thousand times this, I use `git log` as a debugging and learning tool, if I can find the exact commit that introduced a change that I don't really understand why or how was done I resort to looking into git's history to figure it out.

I hate when developers don't put an effort to tell the story of "why" you are doing what you did. The most common failure is just listing down the changes done in the code (the ones you can just read with `git diff`), I hate that.

I treat git's history as a breadcrumb trail, I leave as many breadcrumbs as I can on my commits so others can find the trail later on: JIRA ticket reference, background of the change, why a refactoring is being done, what I found during the refactoring that made it end with a strange design, why the documentation needed to be edited, etc. Whatever I can think that would make my life easier in 1-2 years time if I ever had to read `git log` I try to leave for my future colleagues...

Musing about how you used to call your employer like the failed painter from Austria is a bridge further than ‘ruffling a few feathers’.

I think you completely misread what I wrote; the entire point was that it being in Dutch was valuable (in spite of being a very mediocre to crappy product in every other way).

I think this is a good question; as the author of this, my general attitude to these kind of things is that I'd rather just be myself rather than try to tactically modify my behaviour to get better outcomes.

I've seen people advise that you should "avoid controversial topics" on first dates, as that "might be a turn-off". Well, maybe it can be (certainly had a few dates like that), but that would also be boring conversation, and not very meaningful as such if you're actually looking for a serious relationship (which doesn't apply to just romantic relationships by the way, also other kind of social relationships). Related comment from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23788380

It's partly cultural as well; I've seen this in certain countries (cough England cough), where everyone avoids talking about anything meaningful so all they talk about is the weather or some such pointless conversation because they're afraid someone could possible disagree with something they say. It's not like I'm against small-talk, but if that's all you do... Okay, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but it's certainly very different from my own Dutch culture where people tend to be a lot more forthright.

It's not like I will just say whatever without any filter or consideration for other people's feelings, or what might be inappropriate, or without being receptive to feedback. Actually, I try to be quite conscious in how I communicate, especially online where the lack of body language and diversity of culture/social norms can make things pretty darn hard. But at the end of the day this is mostly about how you say something rather than what you say. e.g. "this is stupid" vs. "I'm not sure if this is a good idea".

There are always trade-offs of course. I was known as "Carpetsmoker" online for years and I changed it across the board over a period of a few years to "arp242" mostly because I felt "Carpetsmoker" didn't sound too professional (a lot of people seem to associate it with drug use – I don't even like to smoke cannabis! It was just a funny joke I made when I was 14 that turned in to a nickname). I still think it's kinda funny, but what's an appropriate nickname when you were 14 isn't necessarily appropriate when you're 36 and actually use your GitHub as a way to earn your living, and it doesn't really matter all that much what your name is; so I just changed it.

I publish it on my personal name because I see it as my personal space. Being anonymous would make it "arp242's personal space" rather than "Martin's personal space". I know some people like to keep their "online identity" more separate from their "real life identity", but personally I don't really separate things out all that much.

This is a bit rambly maybe; I'm having a hard time to articulate my feelings on this ... but I hope it makes sense.

And, of course, everyone can make their own choices in this.