The notable features are: - Move commits up and down, fixup, drop - Rename commits from the editor (without having to stop for a reword during the rebase run) - Visualize modified files along commits - 'Explode' a commit ,creating a commit for each modified file (a thing I found myself doing quite often)
Feedbacks (both on the tool and the code) and contributions welcome, hope it could fit other people needs too !
I'm comfortable git fooing w/e is necessary, but ever since we adopted this, git related conversations went to almost zero. It's great.
The PR is the unit of work, people get too hung up on the PR's individual commits.
Worst: rebase and merge - you end up with your coworker's broken WIP commits all over master, and have a terrible git revert story
OK: merge commit - you can revert, but there is a less intuitive `-m 1` flag (IIRC?) you have to pass into revert, and IMO you rarely need the intermediate history.
Best: squash & merge - you get one single commit representing the unit of work merging in, git revert is dead easy
Also setting the commit message in main to the `{title} (#{prNum})\n\n{prDescription}` format preserves all the good context from your PR and lets you get back to it if you need.
1. You get rid of WIP commits, typo fix commits, all kinds of transient changes (for review and so on)
2. You keep the substantive ones
3. All changes are logically separated
I don’t see where you cover this option.
> Also setting the commit message in main to the `{title} (#{prNum})\n\n{prDescription}` format preserves all the good context from your PR and lets you get back to it if you need.
Again. It is ironic that people are so comfortable with dumping the history in a webapp when you are working with a version control system.
I am fine with a lot of the history being on GitHub or whatever other webapp. The review history, that is. But I’m not comfortable with leaving the history of the pre-squashed commits on GitHub if those pre-squashed commits were useful for the long-term history.
And if the PR author deems their commits insignificant, they can feel free to make one PR and they squash & merge.
Vanilla tools make PRs have a certain overhead. Dependent branches and flipping from the terminal or IDE to the webapp and so on.
And these vanilla tools are often a team requirement. But with git(1) you can work around all that overhead.
Am I gonna stop weirdly insisting on using the version control system itself for version control instead of latching onto whatever passes for “PR”? Apparently not.
The version control system itself doesn't have enough features for collaborative coding. It doesn't have all the discussions and messages exchanged between authors and reviewers. The main task here isn't version control itself but a collaborative social process. The kernel has LKML. The rest of us mostly use GitHub. By making one large PR with distinct commits you force that discussion to be intertwined together. That's why I continue to believe the best way is to make multiple smaller PRs each with one commit (or multiple commits that are squashed upon merge).
[redacted]
You have to create branch names and keep them in synch. with `git rebase --update-refs` constantly. But worst of all: vanilla forge PRs don’t support it. So you have to thread these dependencies manually instead. What magic eliminates this overhead?
I tried out that config for a while but it was too much of a sledgehammer in practice. It rewrote things that I didn’t want.
> And what do you mean vanilla forge PRs don't support it?
Hmm. This is what I would call support:
- Push one time and you get the option from the remote to generate X dependent PRs since the remote sees that you have some branch tip and X-1 ancestor branches which are not in `main`... etc.
I at least haven’t heard of this support in GitHub.
What does not rise to that level: having to create X PRs manually and making sure to target each of them individually.
But apparently the Git experts (or simply the ones who do not suck at it) do this with vanilla tooling. I could very well be missing something here.
> If it's GitHub you simply tell your reviewer to look at the commit diff view not the PR diff view.
You mean a five-commit PR could be a one-commit-per-PR by saying to the reviewer “look at the commit diff”? Then I have no trouble with it.