The point of rebasing for clarity, IMHO, is to take what might be a large, unorganized commit or commits (i.e.
The point of rebasing for clarity, IMHO, is to take what might be a large, unorganized commit or commits (i.e. the result of a few hours good hacking) and turning it into a coherent story of how that feature is implemented. This means splitting it into commits (which change one thing), giving them good commit messages (describing the one thing and its effects), and putting them in the right order. Rather than hiding bugs, usually I wind up finding bugs when doing this because teasing apart the different concerns that were developed in parallel in the hacking session (while keeping your codebase compiling/tests running at every step) tends to expose codependence issues that you wouldn't find when everything's there at once. It's basically a one-person code review. And when you're done you have a coherent story (in commits) which is perfectly suited for other people to review, rather than just a big diff (or smaller messy diffs). It also lets me commit whenever I want to during development, even if the build is broken. This is useful for finding bugs during development as you'll have more recorded states to, i.e., find the last working state when you screw something up. And in-development commits can be more notes to myself about the current state of development rather than well-reasoned prose about the features contained. I realize not everyone agrees with it, but I hope I've described some good reasons why I think modifying history (suitably constrained by the don't-do-it-once-you've-given-your-branch-to-the-public rule) is a good thing, not something to be shunned.
Posted by phs2501 on Jun 19, 2015, 3:17 PM
Tags
Related issues
- Huh, this is not my experience.
- For some reason an Azure outage does not faze me in the same way that an AWS outage does.
- The triplet of wind, pole, dragon appears multiple times in the same order, so is possibly a single phrase that has been broken up into t...
- Option to skip refreshing resource instances whose configuration hasn't changed since the last apply
- [YouTube] Unable to extract uploader id
- Add ability to prioritize GitHub Action runners
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,000 issues0 comments
reliability (E-commerce)
Huh, this is not my experience.
For some reason an Azure outage does not faze me in the same way that an AWS outage does.
The triplet of wind, pole, dragon appears multiple times in the same order, so is possibly a single phrase that has been broken up into t...
Option to skip refreshing resource instances whose configuration hasn't changed since the last apply
[YouTube] Unable to extract uploader id
Add ability to prioritize GitHub Action runners
Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) (1250410)
Codegen collaboration with Apollo Codegen and GraphQL Code Generator
The point of rebasing for clarity, IMHO, is to take what might be a large, unorganized commit or commits (i.e.
The point of rebasing for clarity, IMHO, is to take what might be a large, unorganized commit or commits (i.e. the result of a few hours good hacking) and turning it into a coherent story of how that feature is implemented. This means splitting it into commits (which change one thing), giving them good commit messages (describing the one thing and its effects), and putting them in the right order. Rather than hiding bugs, usually I wind up finding bugs when doing this because teasing apart the different concerns that were developed in parallel in the hacking session (while keeping your codebase compiling/tests running at every step) tends to expose codependence issues that you wouldn't find when everything's there at once. It's basically a one-person code review. And when you're done you have a coherent story (in commits) which is perfectly suited for other people to review, rather than just a big diff (or smaller messy diffs). It also lets me commit whenever I want to during development, even if the build is broken. This is useful for finding bugs during development as you'll have more recorded states to, i.e., find the last working state when you screw something up. And in-development commits can be more notes to myself about the current state of development rather than well-reasoned prose about the features contained. I realize not everyone agrees with it, but I hope I've described some good reasons why I think modifying history (suitably constrained by the don't-do-it-once-you've-given-your-branch-to-the-public rule) is a good thing, not something to be shunned.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.