3 ms·
I've been thinking of a "sub-commit" concept, so a "beautiful, fake" commit that is atomic for most git operations, can be inspected more deeply, revealing bund
by scintill76 11y ago
I've been thinking of a "sub-commit" concept, so a "beautiful, fake" commit that is atomic for most git operations, can be inspected more deeply, revealing bundled messy sub-commits that may be useful for understanding the history of that change. You get "every commit is a deliberately chosen, well-tested logical unit" as well as "present history as it actually happened." Maybe something like this can be done with certain branch/merge workflows, but I haven't seen it and don't understand git well enough to come up with it myself.
- nnutter 11y agoI think merge commits are sufficient but I thought a tool/script could help so I made [git-pinch][1]. It makes it easy to make merge commits without having to go through the trouble of making a branch. I wouldn't say others should necessarily use it but maybe it's a start. One thing merge commits add in complicating one's workflow is rebase requires options to preserve them and sometimes doesn't play nice. [1]: https://github.com/nnutter/git-pinch https://github.com/nnutter/git-pinch
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- scintill76 11y agoThat's a neat tool I'll keep in mind, thanks.
- daxelrod 11y agoAre you familiar with Mercurial's Changeset Evolution? https://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ChangesetEvolution https://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ChangesetEvolution It includes metadata that allows a changeset to be marked obsolete, and to provide successors.
- scintill76 11y agoI wasn't familiar, and I'm not familiar with Mercurial in general, but that looks like it could help. Thanks, I'll keep it in mind.