3 ms·
Wonder if the history command is all that useful. I prefer the interactive rebase and use it frequently. Would much rather “visually” move commits around than
by BobbyTables2 3mo ago
Wonder if the history command is all that useful.
I prefer the interactive rebase and use it frequently.
Would much rather “visually” move commits around than accidentally aim “git history” at an orphaned commit hash no longer in my local branch.
- WorldMaker 3mo agoThe implication seems to be that `git history` is the higher level, safer `git rebase` for common scenarios. If you are already comfortable with `git rebase` you might just keep using it and never need `git history`. If you are learning git as a junior developer (or teaching/mentoring a junior developer on it) `git history` becomes a good, safe stepping stone for a handful of common tasks. I've been in workplaces where I wished I could disable `git rebase` for all junior developers because they kept learning its footguns faster than its capabilities. A stepping stone seems like a really good idea to me.