←back to thread

Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

(github.com)
848 points thefilmore | 6 comments | 13 May 25 05:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
bandrami ◴[13 May 25 06:03 UTC] No.43969975[source]▶
Pretty cool that Linus Torvalds invented a completely distributed version control system and 20 years later we all use it to store our code in a single place.
replies(29): >>43969999 #>>43970002 #>>43970008 #>>43970018 #>>43970019 #>>43970028 #>>43970031 #>>43970032 #>>43970036 #>>43970037 #>>43970142 #>>43970154 #>>43970198 #>>43970282 #>>43970314 #>>43970343 #>>43970418 #>>43970419 #>>43970431 #>>43970434 #>>43970451 #>>43970472 #>>43970541 #>>43970904 #>>43971268 #>>43971299 #>>43971387 #>>43971586 #>>43988717 #
ratatoskrt ◴[13 May 25 06:09 UTC] No.43970008[source]▶
To be fair, Git itself is a bit of a pain, and GitHub's main achievement is/was to make it somewhat bearable.
replies(3): >>43970020 #>>43970066 #>>43970187 #
spookie ◴[13 May 25 06:49 UTC] No.43970187[source]▶
To be fair, most of the its difficulty is realized when you're stuck with a teammate rewriting history. Who, much like anyone anyone doing the same, hasn't bothered reading a book explaining things.
replies(3): >>43970280 #>>43970348 #>>43970388 #
baq ◴[13 May 25 07:02 UTC] No.43970280[source]▶
If you don't rewrite history in git, I don't want to bisect in your repos.

If you push rewritten history to master, you're a git.

Conclusion: learn your tools.

replies(2): >>43970414 #>>43988211 #
1. mkesper ◴[13 May 25 07:23 UTC] No.43970414[source]▶
The modern workflow is just to let GitHub squeeze yor shit commits into one and then rebasing that.
replies(3): >>43970622 #>>43971671 #>>43976065 #
2. baq ◴[13 May 25 08:05 UTC] No.43970622[source]▶
Hardly anything modern about it, but it's a way of keeping a somewhat sane history. Certainly better than merging 'fix' 'fix' 'fix comments' into master.

The thing is, we could have done better (and have been) since before git even existed.

3. cmrdporcupine ◴[13 May 25 11:18 UTC] No.43971671[source]▶
There are legit reasons to have a series of commits within one PR, and rebase and merge them as is, and use amend/fixup and force pushes to maintain them cleanly.

It's not my favourite process, but...

4. vvillena ◴[13 May 25 18:25 UTC] No.43976065[source]▶
The "squash everything" mantra turns git commit history into a series of snapshots devoid of any logical notion about how code evolves.

Squashed commits are strictly worse than plain, non-fast-forwarded merges from rebased branches.

replies(1): >>43976294 #
5. baq ◴[13 May 25 18:50 UTC] No.43976294[source]▶
Depends on your commits. If it’s untested noise I’d much rather they’re squashed so bisect doesn’t meander in trash.
replies(1): >>43976506 #
6. vvillena ◴[13 May 25 19:12 UTC] No.43976506{3}[source]▶
Bisecting with --first-parent takes care of this.