3 ms·
The existence of a tool like first-commit makes me feel especially self conscious about my earliest commits on GitHub repos. It adds to the perception that one'
by HillaryBriss 11y ago
The existence of a tool like first-commit makes me feel especially self conscious about my earliest commits on GitHub repos. It adds to the perception that one's initial checkin is somehow especially important (as opposed to the bug infested, barely-compiling disasterpieces I usually checkin.)
Now, it's like: "Uh, oh, this initial checkin better be perfect. Someone will scrutinize it with first-commit."
OTOH, no one has ever expressed any interest whatsoever in any of my GitHub repos. I doubt even first-commit can change that.
- Ao7bei3s 11y agoI always start with an empty commit[1] for two reasons: 1. It's slightly harder to edit the first commit afterwards (say, to replace a working title with the actual project title before publishing, or to fix authorship or whatever). 2. I create a lot of small repos, all the time, so I have a shell alias for "init, commit, add .gitignore, commit". [1] git init && git commit --allow-empty -m 'Initial commit'
- gioele 11y agoI prefer git init && git commit --allow-empty -m "$(basename (readlink -f .))"
- fjarlq 11y agopwd -P would be equivalent and more portable (POSIX compliant[1]) than readlink -f . which doesn't work on BSD-based systems. [1]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696899/utilities/pwd.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696899/utilities/pwd...