“patch mode” - Patch mode allows you to stage parts of a changed file, instead of the entire file. This allows you to make concise, well-crafted commits that make for an easier to read history.
Highly recommend throwing –patch on any git commands you’re used to using. You will have the prettiest, most atomic fkn commit, I’m serious people will love you for it.
I mean many people won’t care, but the quality folk will notice and approve.
I’ve only tried the VS code hunk stager thing, and found it cumbersome compared to command line, but if you can make a GUI work for you ya go for it. I’ve never found it worth the trouble personally
You should try the JetBrains IDEs, as the other said, you can pick changes line by line graphically, when you commit, when you do a diff with another branch or when you fix conflicts. It’s much more convenient than commands and terminal text editors.
Trunk based, eh? Yeah, we do that on a couple teams where I’m at, too. I like the philosophy, but force pushing the same commit over and over as you’re incorporating review feedback is antisocial, especially when you’ve got devs trying to test your changes out on their machines.
Canonical could have done a lot better with the explanation message here. The idea is to push apps towards XDG compliance and the use of things like Portals.
That said, unlike Wayland, portals really aren’t there yet from a UX perspective, especially for an app that is heavy on file transfers.I prefer what Flathub does where it puts a nice green checker beside your app for XDG compliance - it’s an encouragement, but not an enforcement.
Yeah, the thing is, "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors" is kind of a meme among non-Haskell developers. Personally, I think Haskell is a very interesting language. The mathematical jargon, however, is impenetrable, and this particular expression is kind of the poster child. I'mma go look at Erlang if I want my functional language fix without making my head hurt, thank ye very much.
I wish this was exaggerated, but it isn’t at all. Every time I try to learn Haskell, I end up in some tutorial: “You know how you sometimes need to represent eigenvectors in an n-dimensional plane with isotonically theoretical pulsarfunctions? Haskell types make that easy!”
Y tho??? Holy shit. Commits should be like functions. One thing and one thing only. Maybe a small group of files like the same change over multiple config files. 50 is insane to me.
Every time I commit I have to look through git diff, figure out what the hell I actually did, come up with something intelligent to say about jt, possibly split the commit into multiple commits if I changed multiple things, do some shuffling with git reset and git add…
For some reason all my personal projects are all like 4K SLoC with 50 total commits, all of which include apologies for not doing more smaller commits
You see, sometimes I code something, go to bed before finishing it, come back, decide not to commit because then I’d have to think of a commit message and I just want to code, start working on an unrelated feature, do that for a couple days, get distracted by life stuff and put the project down for a few weeks/months, rinse and repeat, and then I finally get around to writing a commit message because I’m about to start a huge change and I want a restore point and I’m like. Okay, it’s been like 3 months since my last commit, I’m pretty sure my code can now do something it couldn’t 3 months ago but come on, I can’t even remember what I had for lunch last Thursday
I’m well aware this is terrible practice but I don’t know how to stop doing it
Commit more often. Maybe work in a different feature branch, and don’t be afraid to commit your half-working crappy code. If it’s a personal project/fork, it’s totally acceptable to commit often with bad commit names and small unfinished changes: you can always amend/squash the commits later. That’s how I tend to work: create a new branch, work on the feature, rebase and merge (fast forward, no merge commit). Also, maybe don’t jump around working on random features :P
You can help yourself a lot here by making commits every time you make a meaningful change. A feature doesn’t need to be complete to commit major checkpoints along the path to completion. That’s what feature branches are for. Commit often. It’ll help you think of messages, and it’ll help you recover in the case of catastrophe.
I just get too excited about actually implementing/fixing something (random things that I see along the way) more than commit ceremony (nobody will care about it in my project anyway other than one random guy who gave the repo a star)
I spend much time splitting them up inside visual studio by file and individual lines changed to try and separate my many simultaneous changes into several somewhat usable commits. If I was stupid enough to make some big refactor at the same time I might just have to throw in the towel… It’s really painful after a few weeks to try and pick up the pieces of what I was doing but never commited too lol.
Patch add - it shows you particular changes you made, and you choose whether or not to include them in the commit. (You can then use git stash -k to stash only the changes you did not add, so you can test before you commit.)
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.