4 ms·

My work flow consists in working in some topic locally and committing in the smallest topic units possible. Then as I make some fixes due to typos or plain wron

My work flow consists in working in some topic locally and committing in the smallest topic units possible. Then as I make some fixes due to typos or plain wrong logic I just amend or fix up. The longer I keep branched out then bigger the likelihood of having a lot of fixup commits. Then I use this awesome magic git rebase somehash^ -i --autoquash. It re orders all my fixups automatically so it is very painless to consolidate everything before pushing. Maybe it is very known but this fixup/autosquash thing changed my productivity a lot.

yebyen 7y ago
I don't think this feature is very well-known, in fact I've seen it mentioned before, thought "how useful! I will absorb this into my brain now" – and promptly forgot about it. I think there is a critical mass of advanced git features required to be really fluent in git, and there is a sizeable fraction of everyday git users who simply haven't made it all the way there yet. Some teams have at least one person who has enough git features under their belt... To recognize when merge conflicts are being haphazardly made unnecessarily, to be really particular about the shape of the git commit history and be aware of what merges can make those conflicts, to occasionally show the rest of the team some of these tricks or bail someone out when things go haywire, but at least in my experience spreading all of this knowledge to the rest of the team is a long slow process.
stinos 7y ago
I do this the whole time, creating many small commits, fixing up, squashing etc but to keep things a bit orderly I also usually do the rebase -i fairly often in order not to end up with more fixup commits that are easy to fit on screen. But yes: this workflow seems to suit me particularily well and changed the way I work with git. And it tends to lead to a nicely crafted, clear and easy to follow history of all steps of adding a new feature and/or refactoring things and made me more productive and seems to cause less bugs/mess overall because I review pieces of code more often.

yebyen 7y ago

I don't think this feature is very well-known, in fact I've seen it mentioned before, thought "how useful! I will absorb this into my brain now" – and promptly forgot about it. I think there is a critical mass of advanced git features required to be really fluent in git, and there is a sizeable fraction of everyday git users who simply haven't made it all the way there yet. Some teams have at least one person who has enough git features under their belt... To recognize when merge conflicts are being haphazardly made unnecessarily, to be really particular about the shape of the git commit history and be aware of what merges can make those conflicts, to occasionally show the rest of the team some of these tricks or bail someone out when things go haywire, but at least in my experience spreading all of this knowledge to the rest of the team is a long slow process.

stinos 7y ago

I do this the whole time, creating many small commits, fixing up, squashing etc but to keep things a bit orderly I also usually do the rebase -i fairly often in order not to end up with more fixup commits that are easy to fit on screen. But yes: this workflow seems to suit me particularily well and changed the way I work with git. And it tends to lead to a nicely crafted, clear and easy to follow history of all steps of adding a new feature and/or refactoring things and made me more productive and seems to cause less bugs/mess overall because I review pieces of code more often.