As aliases
alias g-log="git log --graph --format='format:%C(yellow)%h%C(reset) %s %C(magenta)%cr%C(reset)%C(auto)%d%C(reset)'"
alias g-history='gitk --all &'
alias g-checkout='git checkout $(git branch --sort=-committerdate --no-merged | fzf)'
alias g-commit='git citool &'
alias g-amend='git citool --amend &'
alias g-rebase='git rebase --interactive --autosquash'
alias g-pull='git pull --verbose --rebase'
alias g-pushf='git push --verbose --force-with-lease'
alias g-status='git status --ignored'
alias g-clean='git clean -fdx && git reset --hard && git submodule foreach --recursive git clean -fdx && git submodule foreach --recursive git reset --hard'
What in the absolute fuck is in that thumbnail??
These AI generated images for articles bother me a lot.
What annoys me the most is that AI image generators make it so easy to make images and yet despite that they’re still too lazy to spend 2 seconds to look at the image and check if it’s crap or not. It would literally take them only a couple of minutes to tweak the prompt and regenerate some more images.
I think they are pretty funny. They don’t matter, it’s just a nice little colorful image that has to be there. There is no information transported or displayed incorrectly, because there is none 😄
Agreed. I also see them all over youtube videos and stuff and I just can’t keep reading/watching. Its not like an ideological thing, i don’t hate generated art. I just find it so distracting.
deleted by creator
I’m gonna be completely honest. I don’t truly get all the inner working of git. I’m a senior DevOps Engineer and been using git for a decade, but is git is simular to
sedorawkfor me. I know how to do what I want really well but when shit goes wrong, I’m flying by the seat of my pants.A lot of times, I just know what to do to fix things because it’s rote memory with substitutions. But if you needed me to explain upstreams and rebases in actual detail, I’d be in trouble. But it rarely becomes an actual problem to the level where I’ll dedicate time to learning all the advanced stuff.
That said, I’ve learnt that most senior people also just pretend they get it all but instead are just relying on rote memorization and basic concepts. Anyone else here in the same camp of being a fraud with git?
Anytime I’m about to get fancy with git I have to stop and remember that I’m an idiot and am probably not doing something else right.
The fact that you have to kind of understand how git works under the hood to really unlock its full potential is a definite design flaw of the tool, but given its ubiquitous use in our industry, I encourage you to check out how git works under the hood. Once you learn the underlying concepts, you reach a whole new level of proficiency with git, no longer having to just get by, and instead you get to thrive.
I had the same feeling until I started using
gitk. I always have agitkwindow open and press F5 to reload, so it shows me the state of everything after I’ve run git commands. Now I grasp everything much better.
If you need anything more complex than cherrypick, you already screwed up big time.
If you need anything more complex than cherrypick, you already screwed up big time.
I think this is a clueless comment. You can use Git to greatly improve your development workflow if you dare going beyond the naive pull/commit/push workflow.
Take for example interactive rebase. It let’s you do very powerful stuff such as changing the order of commits in a local branch and merge/squash contiguous commits. This unlocks workflows such as peeling off bugfix and cleanup commits from your local feature branch without having to switch branches. I’m talking about doing something like:
a) - you’re working on your task, b) - you notice a bug that needs fixing, c) - you fix the bug and commit your fix, e) - you continue to work on your task, f) - you notice a typo in your bugfix code, so you post a fixup commit. g) - you post a few commits to finish your task, h) - you noticed your bugfix commit didn’t had the right formatting, so you post a couple of commits to lint your code both in your bugfix commits and task.
When you feel you’re done, you use interactive rebase to put everything together.
a) you reorder your commits to move your bugfix commit to the top of your local branch, followed by the typo fixup commit and the linter commit. b) you mark both the typo and linter commits as fixup commits to merge them with the bugfix one, c) you post a PR with the single bugfix commit, d) you finally post a PR for your task.
Notice that thanks go git interactive rebase you did not had to break out of your workflow or do any sort of context switch to push multiple PRs. You just worked on things you had to work, and in the end you just reorganize the commit history in your local branch to push your work.
Is this what you call “screwed up big time”?
That sounds like a solution in desperate need for a problem.
All the “problems” you described boil down to “switching branches is evil”.
deleted by creator
That sounds like a solution in desperate need for a problem.
It’s ok if you never did any professional software development work. Those who do have to go through these workflows on a daily basis. Some people don’t even understand why version control systems are used or useful, and that is perfectly ok. Those who do work have to understand how to use their tools, and those who don’t can go about their life without even bothering with this stuff.
And those who don’t immediately insult everyone at the slightest opposition are the ones who get things done.
Seriously, your line of thinking is exactly the one of those weird colleagues nobody wants to work with, because they insist on their idiosyncratic bullshit.
The “problem” you described above is - if it exists at all - extremely niche, and hardly anything anyone should solve with git, but with processes.
Maybe you have a use for it in your workflow - but that might also mean your workflow might not be the best.
And those who don’t immediately insult
Pointing out someone’s claim that they don’t care about processes when it’s the critical aspect of any professional work is hardly what I’d call an insult.
Just go ahead and say you don’t use a tool and thus you don’t feel the need to learn it. Claiming that a tool’s basic functionality is “a solution in search for a problem” is as good as announcing your obliviousness,and that you’re discussing stuff you hardly know anything about.
So, once again we are at a point in subs like this were the question is: Oblivious autist or arrogance bordering on being an asshole?
Pointing out someone’s claim that they don’t care about processes when it’s the critical aspect of any professional work is hardly what I’d call an insult.
See, you’re not claiming that processes are important, you’re claiming that your process is important and your interpretation of Git is the only one allowed, and that everyone who disagress with your opinion is an idiot.
That is factually wrong, extremely close-minded, unproductive, and really really arrogant
See, you’re not claiming that processes are important, you’re claiming that your process is important and
No, I’m claiming that processes are important.
It’s important that stumbling upon a tangentially related bug or even linting issue does not block your work, forces you to fork your work, nor forces you to work around it. It’s important that you can just post a small commit, continue with your work, and only handle that in the very end.
It’s also important that you can work on your feature branch as you please, iterate on tests and fixes as you see fit, and leave cleanup commits to the very end so that your PR contributes a clean commit history instead of reflecting your iterations.
It’s important that you can do any work you feel is important without having to constrain yourself to adapt your work to what you absolutely have to push your changes in a squraky clean state without iterations.
It’s important that you can work on tasks as well as cleanup commits, and not be forced to push them all in a single PR because you are incapable of editing your local commit history.
It’s not about my workflow. It’s about the happy path of a very mundane experience as a professional software developer, specially in a team which relies on a repository’s commit history to audit changes and pinpoint regressions.
This is stuff anyone who works in professional teams can tell you right away. Yet, you talk about this if it was a completely alien concept to you. Why is that? Is everyone around you wrong and your limited superficial experience dictates the norm?
Yet you talk about autism.
It doesn’t disrupt my workflow to switch branches and it’s much faster than some ugly rebase
It’s ok if you don’t feel a need to change your persona workflow.
Nevertheless I’m not sure you understood the example, so I’m not sure you fully grasp the differences.
The whole point of my example was to point out the fact that, thanks to interactive rebase, you do not even need to switch branches to work on multiple unrelated PRs. You can just keep going by doing small commits to your local feature branch and keep doing what you’re doing. In the end all you need to do is simply reorder, squash, and even drop commits to put together multiple PRs from commits that are built upon each other.
Simple, and straight to the point.
I think I understood the example; I think it’s faster to switch branches for the bug-fix than to reorder those commits later
See, I don’t think you understood the example. The commits built upon each other (bugs are fixed while you work on the task, and to work on your task you need the bugs to be fixed) and reordering commits not only take no time at al but they are also the very last thing you do and you have to do the just once.
Oh, okay. I’ve never encountered a situation where I needed that bug fixed for the task but it shouldn’t be fixed as part of the task; if they’re touching the same functionality like that I really don’t see the need for two PRs. But sure, sounds helpful in that really niche case.
Oh, okay. I’ve never encountered a situation where I needed that bug fixed for the task but it shouldn’t be fixed as part of the task;
So you never stumbled upon bugs while doing work. That’s ok, but others do. Those who stumble upon bugs see the value of being able to sort out local commits with little to no effort.
Also, some teams do care about building their work on atomic commits, because they understand the problems caused by mixing up unrelated work on the same PR, specially when auditing changes to track where a regression was introduced. You might feel it’s ok to post a PR that does multiple things like bumping up a package version, linting unrelated code, fixing an issue, and post comments on an unrelated package, but others know those are four separate PRs and should be pushed as four separate PRs.
if they’re touching the same functionality like that I really don’t see the need for two PRs.
That’s ok, not everyone works with QA teams. Once you grow over a scale where you have people whose job is to ensure a bug is fixed following specific end to end tests and detect where a regression was introduced, you’ll understand the value of having tests that verify if a bug is fixed, and only afterwards proceed with changing the user-facing behavior. For those with free-for-all commits where “fixes bug” and “update” show up multiple times in their commit history, paying attention to how a commit history is put together is hardly a concern.
Yes, why are you wasting time with all that. No one uses the commit history to the level that any of that matters. If it does, you ci flow is the problem.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I consider the commit history as documentation for pull requests and for future history, and as such I make liberal use of interactive rebasing to curate my commits.
Rebasing in general is one of those things that I picked up fairly late, but now it’s essential to my git workflow.
What’s ironic is that rebases aren’t as hard as many consider it to be. Once you’ve done it a couple of times, you just do it everyday as easily as you commit changes.
Absolutely. I think it helps a lot to understand the mechanics of git and rebasing, but after a few times it just makes more sense than merging, really.
I’ve been using git for some three years now - never used Cherrypick (not consciously, anyway).
If you’re doing more complex stuff all the time then yes that’s an indication of a problem, but despite your best efforts, complex situations or screw ups do happen and it’s good to know how to fix them, especially if you’re a senior dev that needs to help the rest of the team and resolve conflicts between feature branches. The whole team can’t be perfect all the time.
Also most of the tips in the article aren’t even about branch management and more about optimizations for huge projects or introspection into the history of large projects.
this article suggests shell allowed, but git also has a built-in feature for aliases itself. I prefer these as it allows you to keep using the
gitcommand normally (more consistent when you tend to use history search/auto-suggestions heavily).running
git config --global alias.st status, for example, will allow you to rungit stas an alias for typing out the fullgit status(you can also manually add aliases to your~/.gitconfig).I just prefix all my git aliases with
g-. So for status I typeg-s.
No bisect?
senior dev don’t debug 😎
You need bisect only as a last resort. Effective use of
git blame,git log -p -Setc has always been enough for me. Also, the projects I work with take 10+ minutes to compile even when cached, so doing tens of builds to bisect is much slower than just hunting for strings in git commits and code.
Just be lazy, it’s the best of both worlds.
I always just use git commit -m foo.
But thanks, never heard of citool, thats a new one.
Wow this is pretty helpful, thanks for sharing
Thank you for pasting the contents in the post. I refuse to click a link to a scummy site that uses AI art.
Nasty thing to say on account of the author of the article being the OP as well.
oof :( sorry to see fellow lemmings falling victim to the AI movement.
