4 ms·

Yes, this is a feature of git: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert I don't think rewriting the history of public branches i

Yes, this is a feature of git: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert I don't think rewriting the history of public branches is a good idea.

Mithaldu 11y ago
Please tell me what company you work at so i can avoid it. There's no other way to say it other than that your ideas horrify me.
- tokenizerrr 11y ago
  Wow, way to be literally the opposite of constructive. Grow up.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    We obviously don't see eye to eye. The only thing left is to agree to disagree. And i meant the thing about the company.
    - Profan 11y ago
      The constructive thing in this case would be to introduce your own solution to the problem and argument for it, not bring the level down to day-care level and go all "wow, i'm just gonna avoid you now.".
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        I already introduced my own solution in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744402 To which his only complaint was "this rewrites history", followed by "i'll rather fuck over future developers by throwing in a revert blob followed by a revert-revert blob followed by ANOTHER merge only this time slightly different". There is no point in arguing with someone who thinks that is in any way reasonable. Additionally there is nothing day-care level about this. I've had clients like that, big companies too. Arguing for all sort of development horrors. I've fired those clients. I'd rather spend my time on companies that value the sanity of their people. So, really, i don't give a fuck. And unless he comes back with something along the lines of "i've realized that what i've been doing is sheer insanity and torture of myself and fellow developers", i don't care to hear what he has to say, the same as i am sure he doesn't care what i have to say. And really, i don't care whether you think what i am saying is constructive either. This factitious politeness that you and people like you insist upon is a blight on this industry. Please give me all the downvotes you can muster. It pleases me if i manage to upset people by being earnest, honest and direct, since it tells me more about their character than they're ever likely to realize themselves; and maybe, just maybe, they might end up wondering "Why is that guy so mean to me and doesn't even feel bad about it? What have i done wrong?" And if you actually care to find out something, if a constructive dialogue is your goal, then don't start it out with statements borne of inexperience and lack of knowledge. Start it out with the only question that matters: Why?
  - dang 11y ago
    Both this comment and its parent break the HN guidelines. Please don't post comments here unless they are civil.
    - tokenizerrr 11y ago
      Are you serious? I was being polite and posted a question asking for some constructive feedback. I got some of this, then Mithaldu went off the deep-end and decided to start ridiculing me and tell me how he'd avoid the company I work at because of the questions I'm asking. And now you're saying that I'm the one crossing a line here? Seriously? I just re-read the guidelines, which did I break? The only one I can imagine is not flagging the comment but that was because the software did not let me since it was a reply to one of my posts. I have been perfectly civil. Telling someone they are not being constructive and should grow up is not uncivil when it's in response to: > Please tell me what company you work at so i can avoid it. There's no other way to say it other than that your ideas horrify me. Be sure to read that again and let it sink in. This person wants to know what company I work at so he can avoid it because of a question I asked on the internet about git.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        It wasn't your questions that bothered me, but your ideas expressed in these posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744929 Your initial question was perfectly fine to me. Further, while i think HN is inconsistent at best in how it applies its rules², i realize that dang does have a point and i could've dug further with questions, to see if your mind could be changed. However, the same applies to you just as much. Instead of accusing me of being a child³, you could just as well have asked why i recoiled in horror and thus rerail the discussion in a constructive direction, like to3m did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9745547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9745547 -- ² The rules are hilariously strict, which can be a good thing, but applied to only a small percentage of rule-breaking posts. ³ Not that i particularly care.
        11y ago
- to3m 11y ago
  What would your approach to this problem be?
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    I don't understand why you ask this. I already presented my solution to the problem in the post he was replying to. That one is still valid.
    - to3m 11y ago
      Surely it isn't a great idea once "the" repo has a copy of the dodgy commit, though? Because once everybody else has a copy of it, the history hashes will include it, and removing it with a rebase is going to become more bothersome. (N.B., I am English - by "bothersome" what I suppose I actually mean is "a massive pain in the arse". Because everybody is going to have to take all their commits since the dodgy one and rebase them on top of the new history. Maybe I should rephrase that to "a massive pain in the fucking arse". But it's always possible there's some git magic I'm not aware of.)
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        Generally it is not a good idea. But sometimes one has to admit having fucked up, put a marker on an old branch to let people know it's fucked and clean things up. Especially when the alternative is "break half of git's tools by injecting revert + revert-revert". If i am understanding you right you seem to consider the act of rebasing itself to be "a massive pain in the arse". In a culture where rebasing of feature branches is considered mandatory anyhow, rebasing a feature branch sideways onto a new unbroken master branch is nothing out of the ordinary and quick and easy.

Yes, this is a feature of git: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert https://git-scm.com/docs/git-revert I don't think rewriting the history of public branches is a good idea.

Mithaldu 11y ago

Please tell me what company you work at so i can avoid it. There's no other way to say it other than that your ideas horrify me.

tokenizerrr 11y ago
Wow, way to be literally the opposite of constructive. Grow up.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  We obviously don't see eye to eye. The only thing left is to agree to disagree. And i meant the thing about the company.
  - Profan 11y ago
    The constructive thing in this case would be to introduce your own solution to the problem and argument for it, not bring the level down to day-care level and go all "wow, i'm just gonna avoid you now.".
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      I already introduced my own solution in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744402 To which his only complaint was "this rewrites history", followed by "i'll rather fuck over future developers by throwing in a revert blob followed by a revert-revert blob followed by ANOTHER merge only this time slightly different". There is no point in arguing with someone who thinks that is in any way reasonable. Additionally there is nothing day-care level about this. I've had clients like that, big companies too. Arguing for all sort of development horrors. I've fired those clients. I'd rather spend my time on companies that value the sanity of their people. So, really, i don't give a fuck. And unless he comes back with something along the lines of "i've realized that what i've been doing is sheer insanity and torture of myself and fellow developers", i don't care to hear what he has to say, the same as i am sure he doesn't care what i have to say. And really, i don't care whether you think what i am saying is constructive either. This factitious politeness that you and people like you insist upon is a blight on this industry. Please give me all the downvotes you can muster. It pleases me if i manage to upset people by being earnest, honest and direct, since it tells me more about their character than they're ever likely to realize themselves; and maybe, just maybe, they might end up wondering "Why is that guy so mean to me and doesn't even feel bad about it? What have i done wrong?" And if you actually care to find out something, if a constructive dialogue is your goal, then don't start it out with statements borne of inexperience and lack of knowledge. Start it out with the only question that matters: Why?
- dang 11y ago
  Both this comment and its parent break the HN guidelines. Please don't post comments here unless they are civil.
  - tokenizerrr 11y ago
    Are you serious? I was being polite and posted a question asking for some constructive feedback. I got some of this, then Mithaldu went off the deep-end and decided to start ridiculing me and tell me how he'd avoid the company I work at because of the questions I'm asking. And now you're saying that I'm the one crossing a line here? Seriously? I just re-read the guidelines, which did I break? The only one I can imagine is not flagging the comment but that was because the software did not let me since it was a reply to one of my posts. I have been perfectly civil. Telling someone they are not being constructive and should grow up is not uncivil when it's in response to: > Please tell me what company you work at so i can avoid it. There's no other way to say it other than that your ideas horrify me. Be sure to read that again and let it sink in. This person wants to know what company I work at so he can avoid it because of a question I asked on the internet about git.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      It wasn't your questions that bothered me, but your ideas expressed in these posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744929 Your initial question was perfectly fine to me. Further, while i think HN is inconsistent at best in how it applies its rules², i realize that dang does have a point and i could've dug further with questions, to see if your mind could be changed. However, the same applies to you just as much. Instead of accusing me of being a child³, you could just as well have asked why i recoiled in horror and thus rerail the discussion in a constructive direction, like to3m did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9745547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9745547 -- ² The rules are hilariously strict, which can be a good thing, but applied to only a small percentage of rule-breaking posts. ³ Not that i particularly care.
      - 11y ago
to3m 11y ago
What would your approach to this problem be?
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  I don't understand why you ask this. I already presented my solution to the problem in the post he was replying to. That one is still valid.
  - to3m 11y ago
    Surely it isn't a great idea once "the" repo has a copy of the dodgy commit, though? Because once everybody else has a copy of it, the history hashes will include it, and removing it with a rebase is going to become more bothersome. (N.B., I am English - by "bothersome" what I suppose I actually mean is "a massive pain in the arse". Because everybody is going to have to take all their commits since the dodgy one and rebase them on top of the new history. Maybe I should rephrase that to "a massive pain in the fucking arse". But it's always possible there's some git magic I'm not aware of.)
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      Generally it is not a good idea. But sometimes one has to admit having fucked up, put a marker on an old branch to let people know it's fucked and clean things up. Especially when the alternative is "break half of git's tools by injecting revert + revert-revert". If i am understanding you right you seem to consider the act of rebasing itself to be "a massive pain in the arse". In a culture where rebasing of feature branches is considered mandatory anyhow, rebasing a feature branch sideways onto a new unbroken master branch is nothing out of the ordinary and quick and easy.