3 ms·
Yes, this is great! It's like I can see you coding, your process is captured in history. When I just want the end result, I can filter the logs or look at the
by WolfeReader 2y ago
Yes, this is great! It's like I can see you coding, your process is captured in history.
When I just want the end result, I can filter the logs or look at the merge commit. But this is valuable too - especially since you yourself might look back at it and remember not just what you wrote, but how.
- dzaima 2y agoFiltering requires a filter to exist, which is time alternatively spent doing rebasing (esp. awful if you're not the one who wrote it and now have to make sense of the awful mess to achieve literally anything out of it). And that log contains like 4 completely independent things, which wouldn't ever make sense in a single merge anyway (unless you like awful merges of a bunch of random things thrown together in a random order, at which point reading the merge commit message now also requires scanning through and ignoring a bunch of unrelated things, and tracking which change corresponds to which commit named "."; never mind that a merge commit necessarily cannot relate notes to code changes as good as commits can; never mind that this requires a merge commit to exist in the first place, which too is time that can alternatively be spent doing nice rebasing). As fun as it might look, I'm fairly certain that the original commit contents are entirely useless to anyone who isn't me, and by this point they're pointless to me too. I'm fairly certain it's entirely pointless other than a trip down the memory lane (which, granted, can be quite fun, but is entirely not worth basing the primary git log around).