5 ms·
Not sure if this morally ok, because I assume it uses git timestamps to trick the activity graph.
by zapt02 13y ago
Not sure if this morally ok, because I assume it uses git timestamps to trick the activity graph.
- icebraining 13y agoWhy would it be morally not ok to trick the activity graph and/or create fake git timestamps?
- Argorak 13y agoLet's put it another way: it shows very nicely that the activity graph is a very nice plaything, but not to be trusted in any way.
- lcedp 13y agoHacking things is not morally ok?
- manojlds 13y agoJust a "script kiddie" in this case if you use it.
- infinity0 13y agogithub activity discounts commits to non-master branches anyway, which is pretty immoral from my point of view.
- shocks 13y agoIt'll display correctly once you merge your non-master branches down.
- infinity0 13y agodoesn't seem to be working for me.
- lparry 13y agocomplete stab in the dark here, but perhaps however you're getting your work onto master is rewriting timestamps (NFI if the graph goes off authored or commited dates). Maybe try 'git checkout master && git merge --no-ff feature-branch' and see if that helps
- rfergie 13y agoImmoral seems to be a bit of a strong word here. But then I don't use git/github much. Can you explain?
- infinity0 13y agoThe parent post mentioned "moral", I was just making the point not to take online infographics too seriously - there are inaccuracies in both directions.