Today I like to do all of the commits as I’m working. Maybe dozens or more as I chug along, marking off waypoints rather than logging actual changes. When I’m done a quick interactive rebase cleans up the history to meaningful commits quite nicely.

The fun part is that I will work with people sometimes who both swear that “rewriting history” is evil and should never be done, but also tell me how useful my commit logs are and want to know how I take such good notes as I go.

[–] swordsmanluke@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago

Argh. I hate that argument.

Yes - "Rewriting history" is a Bad Thing - but o argue that's only on 'main' (or other shared branches). You should (IMHO) absolutely rewrite your local history pre-push for exactly the reasons you state.

If you rewrite main's history and force your changes everybody else is gonna have conflicts. Also - history is important for certain debugging and investigation. Don't be that guy.

Before you push though... rebasing your work to be easily digestible and have a single(ish) focus per commit is so helpful.

review is easier since concerns aren't mixed
If a commit needs to be reverted it limits the collateral damage
history is easier to follow because the commits tell a story

I use a stacked commit tool to help automate rebasing on upstream commits, but you can do it all with git pretty easily.

Anyway. Good on you; Keep the faith; etc etc. :)

[–] sping@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Even better, master creating fixup and squash commits and maintain logical commits as you work with git rebase -i --autosquash