3 ms·
On the other hand, "fix x" followed by a couple lines of rationale, then "actually fix x" with a discussion of why the previous fix was wrong is more useful to
by stonogo 7y ago
On the other hand, "fix x" followed by a couple lines of rationale, then "actually fix x" with a discussion of why the previous fix was wrong is more useful to someone trying to understand x.
- rgoulter 7y agoI think the discussion is valuable. I think adding those insights to a wiki 'Pitfalls' page or whatever is valuable. From the top of my head, the cases where I'm looking at Git logs are: 1. Code Review. Most of the time I'm reviewing code is looking at a diff. But obviously one of "fix" and "actually fix" is redundant. A clean history also benefits if I want to focus in on one of the commits. 2. Annotation/Blame. If I'm debugging through some issue and looking at older changes, it's nice if coupled changes are in the same commit. A warts-and-all history has some advantages over rewriting git history (e.g. you could find patterns of where "actually fix" happens and try and improve those), but rewriting history makes the log a better communication tool.
- rtpg 7y agoYeah this is legitimate I think it’s maybe the difference between emotional truth and literal truth. The emotional truth is the valuable one so rebasing (which doesn’t mean squashing to one commit!) can mean you can clean out the noise and get something valuable.