▲ 43 ▼ What were your misconceptions about Git when you first started? (programming.dev) submitted 2 years ago* by canpolat@programming.dev [M] to c/git@programming.dev 77 comments fedilink hide all child comments I used CVS and ClearCase before moving into Git, and it took me some time to adjust to the fact that the cost of branching in Git is much much less than ClearCase. And getting into the "distributed" mindset didn't happen overnight.
[+] Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lysdexic@programming.dev 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) What is the advantage of rebasing? You get a cleaner history that removes noise from the run-of-the-mill commit auditing process. When you audit the history of a repo and you look into a feature branch, you do not care if in the middle of the work a developer merged with x or y branch. What you care about is what changes were made into mainline. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Instead of a commit history, you get a commit fairy tale, which is prettier than the truth, but probably less useful. You get something akin to merging the base branch into the feature branch but things look as if they were done in an order they weren't instead of getting an 'ugly' merge commit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) What is the advantage of rebasing? You get a cleaner history that removes noise from the run-of-the-mill commit auditing process. When you audit the history of a repo and you look into a feature branch, you do not care if in the middle of the work a developer merged with x or y branch. What you care about is what changes were made into mainline. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Instead of a commit history, you get a commit fairy tale, which is prettier than the truth, but probably less useful. You get something akin to merging the base branch into the feature branch but things look as if they were done in an order they weren't instead of getting an 'ugly' merge commit. permalink fedilink source parent