3 ms·

Both of those sound totally reasonable to me! I don't know of any better ways to do that stuff and there's nothing risky about it.

• int0x80 3y ago
  One thing that is risky about git reset --hard is that any non-committed changes are lost. That has bitten me a few times.
  • afiori 3y ago
    My controversial opinion is that git needs some kind of gui that help you keep track of the state of the repo
    • chronial 3y ago
      A very effective solution for that is a well-configured shell. IF you summarize the state of the repo in the prompt, it is always visible while typing a command.
• LtWorf 3y ago
  Completely reasonable if you do on your local branch, or if you have a convention that remote branches starting with your name or something are yours only. If you rewrite history on master… well… completely unreasonable.