Git

2874 readers

11 users here now

Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.

Resources

Rules

Follow programming.dev rules
Be excellent to each other, no hostility towards users for any reason
No spam of tools/companies/advertisements. It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.

Git Logo by Jason Long is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

canpolat@programming.dev

jnovinger@programming.dev

commit messages are optional (schpet.com)

submitted 3 months ago by mac@programming.dev to c/git@programming.dev

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I think squashing is great and I would never want to go back. It helps ensuring:

All commits in main have useful messages. No more “fix pipeline errors”, “fix MR comments”, etc.
Ensures pipeline has been successful with all commits in main. No need to guess which commits will build and won’t build.
Easy to revert commits.
Eliminates incompressible history because someone had a bad day with git.
Encourages frequent commits. No need to ensure all commits are perfect and good in their own right. Commit when you want to commit even if it’s incomplete work.

And IMO, if your work warrants multiple commits, then it probably also warrants multiple merge requests. Merge requests should be rather small to make it easier to review.

Edit: another good thing is that when we decide to release, we can easily look through the commit history for a change log. No more sifting through minor fixes commits.

[–] eclipse@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree with most of these but there's another missing benefit. A lot of the time my colleagues will be iterating on a PR so commits of "fuck, that didn't work, maybe this" are common.

I like meaningful commit messages. IMO "fixed the thing" is never good enough. I want to know your intent when I'm doing a blame in 18 months time. However, I don't expect anyone's in progress work to be good before it hits main. You don't want those comments in the final merge, but a squash or rebase is an easy way to rectify that.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

git rebase trumps all of the things you mentioned...

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Git rebase can be hard to understand for many. Not everyone has the blessing of being in a team of Git gurus.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago

It's more about the tooling. IDEs make it really simple.

Also people get scared when they hear it because of utterances like yours. I'm dumb af. Git rebase for your use cases can be renamed to "git edit-history $fromCommit". Nothing special about it.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

Merge requests should be rather small to make it easier to review.

With this I wholeheartedly agree

if your work warrants multiple commits, then it probably also warrants multiple merge requests.

With this not so much, but if you keep your merge requests so small, squashing them is no big deal, that's a good counterexample for my previous point.

another good thing is that when we decide to release, we can easily look through the commit history for a change log. No more sifting through minor fixes commits.

That still requires you to write meaningful messages, just a bit rarer. We do have trouble with change logs, but we had exact same problems when people squashed left and right. Maybe squashing helps self-discipline, though, I haven't thought about it that way