3 ms·

I promise you're not missing much, except some commits that are implementing something, reverting it, implementing it again slightly differently, fixing typos,

I promise you're not missing much, except some commits that are implementing something, reverting it, implementing it again slightly differently, fixing typos, replacing 80% of the codebase in one swoop and similar stupid and un-needed stuff. If the project is from the get-go supposed to be a long-lived project (like professional development for a business) then I agree, don't smoke the entire history no matter how embarrassing it is. But for my personal projects, I can let you know that having access to the git history before I made it FOSS will make you dumber rather than being helpful for anything, compared to one clean starting commit.

broken-kebab 1y ago
Why do you think it's embarassing? The result is what reasonable people judge. And if you get to it through trial and error, well, that's how it's done almost everytime. It's normal
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > Why do you think it's embarassing? I don't? I said I remove it because it isn't useful to anyone, might even be adding more confusion than it solves, not because I'm embarrassed over anything.
  - g-b-r 1y ago
    If it really isn't useful, which I imagine means you committed somewhat haphazardly, ok, of course. If there might be some usefulness hidden there (for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it), it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository or another branch (better the latter, unless it increases the repository's size too much)
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it True, those things tend to go into the documentation itself, checked into the codebase itself instead of being somewhat hidden inside the git history. Usually I end up having both a "Open Problems" (things yet to solve) and a "Tried X, this is why it didn't work" section somewhere in the documentation. > it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository Yes, before the process I initially described, I usually leave a copy intact with the full-full history, but that's not what I published, just kept as an archive.
      - g-b-r 1y ago
        > > for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it > > True, those things tend to go into the documentation itself, checked into the codebase itself instead of being somewhat hidden inside the git history. Usually I end up having both a "Open Problems" (things yet to solve) and a "Tried X, this is why it didn't work" section somewhere in the documentation. That's good, and yes, if that repository history really wouldn't add anything it's fine to squash everything > > it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository > > Yes, before the process I initially described, I usually leave a copy intact with the full-full history, but that's not what I published, just kept as an archive. Ok, I meant a public repository though

broken-kebab 1y ago

Why do you think it's embarassing? The result is what reasonable people judge. And if you get to it through trial and error, well, that's how it's done almost everytime. It's normal

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> Why do you think it's embarassing? I don't? I said I remove it because it isn't useful to anyone, might even be adding more confusion than it solves, not because I'm embarrassed over anything.
- g-b-r 1y ago
  If it really isn't useful, which I imagine means you committed somewhat haphazardly, ok, of course. If there might be some usefulness hidden there (for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it), it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository or another branch (better the latter, unless it increases the repository's size too much)
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    > for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it True, those things tend to go into the documentation itself, checked into the codebase itself instead of being somewhat hidden inside the git history. Usually I end up having both a "Open Problems" (things yet to solve) and a "Tried X, this is why it didn't work" section somewhere in the documentation. > it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository Yes, before the process I initially described, I usually leave a copy intact with the full-full history, but that's not what I published, just kept as an archive.
    - g-b-r 1y ago
      > > for example, trying something and then reverting it shows that you did explore it > > True, those things tend to go into the documentation itself, checked into the codebase itself instead of being somewhat hidden inside the git history. Usually I end up having both a "Open Problems" (things yet to solve) and a "Tried X, this is why it didn't work" section somewhere in the documentation. That's good, and yes, if that repository history really wouldn't add anything it's fine to squash everything > > it's also possible to place the old stuff in another repository > > Yes, before the process I initially described, I usually leave a copy intact with the full-full history, but that's not what I published, just kept as an archive. Ok, I meant a public repository though