Because some scammers are stupid enough to believe that they'll get a certain amount of money (usually very large) from scambaiters. It's even more hilarious when they fail to catch on (after a long period of time) to the fact that they've been led on.
I personally never rebase. It always seems to have some problem. I’m surely there’s a place and time for rebasing but I’ve never seen it in action I guess.
If your cherry-pick doesn't run into conflicts why would your merge? You don't need to merge to master until you're done but you should merge from master to your feature branch regularly to keep it updated.
(I’m also a fan of rebasing; but I also like to land commits that perform a logical and separable chunk of work, because I like history to have decent narrative flow.)
That is absolutely not what rebasing does. Rebasing rewrites the commit history, cherry picking commits then doing a normal merge does not rewrite any history.
I’m sorry but that’s incorrect. “Rewriting the commit history” is not possible in git, since commits are immutable. What rebase actually does is reapply each commit between upstream and head on top of upstream, and then reset the current branch to the last commit applied (This is by default, assuming no interactive rebase and other advanced uses). But don’t take my word for it, just read the manual. git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase
“Reapply” is rewriting it on the other branch. The branch you are rebasing to now has a one or multiple commits that do not represent real history. Only the very last commit on the branch is actually what the user rebasing has on their computer.
My biggest issue with GitHub is that it always squashes and merges. It’s really annoying as it not only takes away from commit history, but it also puts the fork out of sync with the main branch, and I’ll often realize this after having implemented another features, forcing me end up cherry picking just to fix it. Luckily LazyGit makes this process pretty painless, but still.
Seriously people, use FF-merge where you can.
Then again, if my feature branch has simply gone behind upstream, I usually pull and rebase. If you’ve got good commits, it’s a really simple process and saves me a lot of future headaches.
There’s obviously places not to use rebase(like when multiple people are working on a branch), but I consider it good practice to always rebase before merge. This way, we can always just FF-merge and avoid screwing with the Git history. We do this at my company and honestly, as long as you follow good practices, it should never really get too out of hand.
Sounds like I just gotta get better with rebasing. But generally I do my merges clean from local changes. I’ll commit and push, then merge in, push. Then keep working. Not too hard to track but I’ve found it’s the diff at MR time that people really pay attention to. So individual commits haven’t been too crucial.
Yeah, I am. However GitHub, being the biggest Git hosting provider and all that, makes you use merge commits. FF-merges must be done manually from the command line. While this definitely isn’t a problem for me, many people out there just don’t care and merge without a second thought (which, as I said in my comment, results in having to create a new branch and cherry picking the commits onto there).
Always merge when you’re not sure. Rebasing rewrites your commit history, and merging with the squash flag discards history. In either case, you will not have a real log of what happened during development.
Why do you want that? Because it allows you to go back in time and search. For example, you could be looking for the exact commit that created a specific issue using git bisect. Rebasing all the commits in a feature branch makes it impossible to be sure they will even work, since they represent snapshots that never existed.
I’ll never understand why people suggest you should default to rebasing. When prompted about why, it’s usually some story about how it went wrong and it was just easier to do it the wrong way.
I’m not saying never squash or rebase. It depends on the situation but if you had to pick a default, it should be to simply merge.
I try to structure my commits in a way that minimizes their blast radius, which usually likes trying to reduce the number of files In touch per commit.
For example, my commit history would look like this:
Add new method to service class
Use new service class method in worker
And then as I continue working, all changes will be git commit --fixuped to one of those two commit’s hashes depending on where they occur.
And when it’s time to rebase in full, I can do a git rebase master --interactive --autosquash.
I’ve always merged. Rebase simplifies the history graph, but realistically I can’t think of a time where that has been important to me, or any of the teams I’ve worked with.
Maybe on some projects with a huge number of concurrent branches it becomes more important, probably less so for smaller teams.
Jennifer is a lesbian. Her wife, now husband, who she’s proudly supportive of, is FtM, with 3 previous children that Jennifer adopted. Jennifer has never had penetrative sex with a man.
A quick “find all references” will point out it’s not used and can be deleted if it accidentally gets checked in but ideally, you have systems in place to not let it get checked into the main branch in the first place.
Or a linter. Or code reviews. Or anything else. The nice thing is that if the compiler doesn’t demand something, it can be given to the engineer as an option. The compiler should have the option to do it. The option could even be defaulted on. Afaik there is no way in Golang to disable that error (this is the line that does it: github.com/golang/go/blob/…/stmt.go#L67-L69). like --no-pedantics or such. Golang’s compiler openly refuses to give engineers more choices in what they think is the best system to handle it.
If it is a pure value, I’d assume yes, but if it is tied to a side effect (E.g. write its value to a file), then it would be not used but still could break your app if removed.
I’m not familiar with rust language specifically, but generally that’s what could happen
I prefer for it to be just a warning so I can debug without trouble, the build system will just prevent me from completing the pull request with it (and any other warning).
If only there was some way the compiler could detect unused variable declarations, and may be emit some sort of “warning”, which would be sort of like an “error”, but wouldn’t cause the build to fail, and could be treated as an error in CI pipelines
Let’s not pretend people acknowledge warnings, though. It’s a popular meme that projects will have hundreds of warnings and that devs will ignore them all.
There’s a perfectly valid use case for opinionated languages that don’t let you get away with that. It’s also similar to how go has gofmt to enforce a consistent formatting.
You can, if you want, opt into warnings causing your build to fail. This is commonly done in larger projects. If your merge request builds with warnings, it does not get merged.
In other words, it’s not a bad idea to want to flag unused variables and prevent them from ending up in source control. It’s a bad idea for the compiler to also pretend it’s a linter, and for this behaviour to be forced on, which ironically breaks the Unix philosophy principle of doing one thing and doing it well.
Mind you, this is an extremely minor pain point, but frankly this is like most Go design choices wherein the idea isn’t bad, but there exists a much better way to solve the problem.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.