4 ms·
As a frequent user of fixups, this feels like a solution for already broken workflows. > Instead of manually finding commit SHAs for git commit --fixup Assumi
by rglynn 2y ago
As a frequent user of fixups, this feels like a solution for already broken workflows.
> Instead of manually finding commit SHAs for git commit --fixup
Assuming you are using fixups, is this actually a problem?
I could see this being a possibility if you are:
A. not practicing atomic commits
or B. have so many commits in your branch that this is a chore.
A. seems unlikely if you are already using fixups and B. seems like a problem worth solving properly rather than going around.
To sum up, I'm not convinced by the elevator pitch. However, I am keenly aware that the workflows of developers differ vastly across industry, company size, technology etc. I'd be interested to understand what problems this or similar tools solve?
- adastra22 2y agoHow would you manage long-lived branches that are periodically rebased against the master branch (when there is a release, for example)?
- seadan83 2y agoWhat solutions have you seen for problem (B)? The open source example is hard to fix AFAIK. Everything needs to be a PR, some changes to older code bases are simply going to be either large or multi-stepped (many commits, and sending them all as stacked PRs is often not efficient enough to be effective). In industry, I think there are more solutions available. Though, overall, I am very curious how you would go about solving B.
- cryptonector 2y agoTools like this are useful for users who are not power users.
- keybored 2y ago> Assuming you are using fixups, is this actually a problem? No. They made a whole tool around a not-actually problem. Sure you can have a 30-commit branch. Find some OSS project where someone has been doing a large project on a branch for two months because the maintainer hasn’t accepted it yet.