3 ms·
Why store git history at all? It's useless if you don't take care of it. Have you ever used git history for anything? People use it to find the source of regres
by globular-toast 2y ago
Why store git history at all? It's useless if you don't take care of it. Have you ever used git history for anything? People use it to find the source of regressions (you can do it quite quickly using git bisect).
- froh 2y agothe git history of the linux kernel documents the Linux kernel detailed Design, the reasoning how things fit together. I've used it several times to understand why things are done the way they are. The discussion leading to this design is encoded in the revisions of the patch series, browsable on patchworks. I agree to your point that the git history has to be taken care of to be useful.
- globular-toast 2y agoMy question was, of course, rhetorical. This and hunting regressions are two great reasons to keep history. "What did John do on Tuesday morning" is not a good reason to keep history. Neither is "This change was made as part of a sprawling "fix" commit that happened on Thursday afternoon". The important point is if you are going to keep history at all it needs to be kept in a state that is actually useful, meaning useful for the first two things, not the last two. Otherwise it's just a waste of disk space. The git history is meticulously maintained which is what makes it actually useful.
- keybored 2y agoHappens on all these threads. - Thread: This helps you make a useful Git history - Counter-point: Why are you using a version control system to make a useful history? Why does the history matter? I have been developing software for eighty years and neither I nor anyone I’ve met have cared.
- jeltz 2y agoI use the git history all the time. For example the git history of PostgreSQL is amazing but I have also worked with proprietary software with good git history. And one key to good git history is people splitting up big PRs in multiple commits.