• zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev
    1·
    2 months ago

    When I’m just locally iterating on stuff I’ll usually do a git commit -m "WIP: Description of what I'm trying to do" and then git commit --amend to it. A bit more ergonomic than stashing if I want to switch branches imo. I can also go back to old versions if I want to through the reflog.

    git commit --fixup some-commit is also great for if I discover things in the review for example. You can then do git rebase master --autosquash to flatten them into the commit they belong to and that way you don’t have to bother with commit messages like “fixed typo”. Doing fixups for small fixes is good because it allows you to keep your mr broken up into several commits without also leaving in a bunch of uninteresting history.

    Can recommend checking out the –fixup section in the git documentation if you haven’t heard about --fixup before.

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    But shouldn’t be. How hard is it to summarize your work in a few words? Even a bad description is more memorable than a hash.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
      2·
      2 months ago

      The post mentions that these are for commits in a merge request before squash. When they’re squashed a proper message is given.

      • lad@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Also, squashing is a pretty bad practice as it is. I can understand that it may make sense sometimes, but most of the time if you don’t commit every other character you input, you’re better off leaving some history of how your code evolved and what changes were coming together

        • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
          1·
          2 months ago

          I think squashing is great and I would never want to go back. It helps ensuring:

          • All commits in main have useful messages. No more “fix pipeline errors”, “fix MR comments”, etc.
          • Ensures pipeline has been successful with all commits in main. No need to guess which commits will build and won’t build.
          • Easy to revert commits.
          • Eliminates incompressible history because someone had a bad day with git.
          • Encourages frequent commits. No need to ensure all commits are perfect and good in their own right. Commit when you want to commit even if it’s incomplete work.

          And IMO, if your work warrants multiple commits, then it probably also warrants multiple merge requests. Merge requests should be rather small to make it easier to review.

          Edit: another good thing is that when we decide to release, we can easily look through the commit history for a change log. No more sifting through minor fixes commits.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        Sure, but how much of that is justification and backpedaling?

        If it’s worth a commit, it’s worth a description. “Address vulns” “fix config” “remove files”. It doesn’t take much. Even if it’s just “more address vulns”.

        • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
          0·
          2 months ago

          Often I commit because I have to jump to another branch, so I want to save my progress. This means I can be in the middle of something, so I write a trash message.

          All those messages will disappear anyway after the merge request, because we use a squash policy. I can spend more time thinking of a more proper commit message when writing the merge request.