you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 2 years ago (9 children)

I'll go one further: use git rebase --interactive

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Argh. I hate that argument.

    Yes - "Rewriting history" is a Bad Thing - but o argue that's only on 'main' (or other shared branches). You should (IMHO) absolutely rewrite your local history pre-push for exactly the reasons you state.

    If you rewrite main's history and force your changes everybody else is gonna have conflicts. Also - history is important for certain debugging and investigation. Don't be that guy.

    Before you push though... rebasing your work to be easily digestible and have a single(ish) focus per commit is so helpful.

    • review is easier since concerns aren't mixed
    • If a commit needs to be reverted it limits the collateral damage
    • history is easier to follow because the commits tell a story

    I use a stacked commit tool to help automate rebasing on upstream commits, but you can do it all with git pretty easily.

    Anyway. Good on you; Keep the faith; etc etc. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    The only other time rewriting history might be bad is when you’re working on a shared branch, which is the point of not rewriting main. If you are working solo on a branch, its history is only what you merge into main so it doesn’t fucking matter at all. If you’re not working solo, maybe you need to adopt a similar process or look at how you’re not working solo. The only time I touch another dev’s branch is at the PR stage and only for quick corrections or missing knowledge so it doesn’t matter if they rebased before or honestly rebase after before the final merge.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    At my company we just use a squash policy in gitlab. Every merge request becomes a single commit to the main branch. Super easy to read the commit log because all commits are descriptive instead of a bunch of “fix MR comments” or “fix pipeline errors”.

    Another advice: git reset [commit-id] followed with a git commit -a is a quick way to squash all your commits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Another advice ...quick way to squash all your commits

    in your IDE select the commits you want to squash. Then rightclick. Then "squash". All done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I am still mystified by IDE VCS tools. It’s usually faster for me to do a quick CLI shuffle than use the IDE.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I use like 3 of the git-feature from intellij (out of 100 or so). But these 3 features save me a lot of time.

    (the other 2 being the 3-way-merge-view and the commit-view where I can select changes for staging)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    This is really the only sane way to do it. I have run into some wonkyness with the commit history of the target branch commits not resembling git log, but that's usually for commits outside of what I'm trying to merge.

    Edit: squashing commits down this way also helps reduce problems with replaying commit history on the actual rebase. In most cases you don't need all your "microcommits" in the history, and fewer commits just takes less time to reconcile.

  • source
  • parent