←back to thread

848 points thefilmore | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
bandrami ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
mkesper ◴[] 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 #
1. cmrdporcupine ◴[] 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...