6 ms·
> The vast majority of people do not. That's a very bold claim. It's certainly been the expected workflow everywhere I've worked. You might consider it a wast
by jamienicol 6y ago
> The vast majority of people do not.
That's a very bold claim.
It's certainly been the expected workflow everywhere I've worked. You might consider it a waste of time but I'd wager the resulting mess of commits from not doing so wastes far more time in the long run.
- recursive 6y agoI've never worked in an environment where it was expected or used. As far as I can tell, no time has been wasted as a result. How would it cause time wasting?
- jamienicol 6y agoWithout a clean history it takes longer to find which commit changed things and why.
- recursive 6y agoI believe I've really only needed to do that once. git bisect handled it in about 10 minutes IIRC. It's hard for me to imagine how I could achieve a net time savings against that level of commit-hunting.
- jamienicol 6y agoI envy you then. I spend a great deal of time looking through history to find bugs. An unclean history is less likely to work well with bisect too, as the individual commits may be broken.
- Supermancho 6y ago> I spend a great deal of time looking through history to find bugs. You mean when where and how a change was introduced? I dont think bugs are located in the history, since bugs are operational failures on a deployed branch.
- jamienicol 6y agoYes, I phrased that badly. Let's say looking through history to understand the context of when bugs were introduced and how to fix them