4 ms·
I can't help but wonder whether this could be solved more simply, allowing people to just use their normal git workflow and tools (with syntax highlighting etc)
by indentit 8y ago
I can't help but wonder whether this could be solved more simply, allowing people to just use their normal git workflow and tools (with syntax highlighting etc) by just auto committing and pushing changes to a `wip_<username>` branch, then one can see the changes just by fetching from the remote as usual... I know the premise here is that it treats the repo as read-only, but IMO it loses a lot of power and transparency by doing so.
- Terretta 8y agoCould even only “auto-commit” when the dev attempts to “run” locally, e.g., imagines they’ve got enough code entered to be a meaningful increment.
- jtsiskin 8y agoThis is an interesting idea! Although it may be tricky to know when something is 'run', but there are ways to solve that. A use case we found useful was: while working, I can ping my coworker and say "I'm having some debate over the design of x, can you look at it when you have a chance?" and continue working on x. My coworker can then take a look at what I have even before I am in a state to compile and run.