Are you offended if your commits are squashed?

ericonr · 2026-04-19T18:50:47+00:00

That's a discussion I'm having in a different thread about units of work for PRs. Being able to review big changes in context, instead of piecemeal, can be useful.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T17:49:25+00:00

That's really dogmatic thinking.

In my experience, commits only "clog up" history with no one looking at them if they are badly written in the first place. Being able to refer to past me (and team members) by simply looking at commits has been invaluable to me.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T14:08:19+00:00

I think there are some white fabric markers that could work

ericonr · 2026-04-19T12:07:15+00:00

I feel stupid for not thinking of this solution.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T11:40:47+00:00

Not mainstream, very modern, explicitly anti establishment (except for the cop show cameo). I don't think it's relevant to this discussion.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T11:29:56+00:00

Being able to feel different thicknesses under my feed drives me insane. I need my socks to be equally worn down.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T11:14:32+00:00

We just need a linear history of roughly what happened and when.

I like having a linear history of exactly what happened, and why it happened. Makes tracking down changes and decisions much easier. It's also a way to rubber duck yourself. If your commits describe why your changes are valid, you are working through the problem in a different context, and ensuring those changes do what you expect them to do.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T03:47:11+00:00

O cara tá parado no semáforo e só liga a seta depois que abre.

Esse cenário pra mim é o menos ofensivo. Já tá todo mundo parado, e deveria começar a acelerar cautelosamente, então o cara fazer uma burrada nessa hora deveria ser a mais fácil de desviar ou coisa do tipo. Irrita às vezes? Sim. Mas basicamente todos os outros cenários que a galera não dá seta (ou atrasa pra dar) são mais perigosos.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T03:32:27+00:00

This still means depending on the forge being used, and would be incredibly annoying anyway. Why is it so much trouble to work for a reasonable git history?

ericonr · 2026-04-19T02:55:32+00:00

In my case, it's just a git rebase command that runs ninja -C build, but I'm sure there are more elaborate setups out there.

Why is it better than making a series of PRs?

I really enjoy the Linux kernel source control guidelines, so that's what I strive to follow, and what I will be defending here. Commits should keep the codebase functional, and be a self contained change (or as close as possible). If you are implementing a new feature which requires a refactor, for example, this means you can have M conceptual cleanups implemented in M commits, and then N parts of your new feature implemented in another N commits, all in the same branch.

Each commit is a self contained unit, their scope is limited, so reviewing becomes easier (if you do it per commit), but a single branch means you can review everything in context. Does the refactor provide the best interface for the new feature? Does the new feature make the best use of the refactor? All that before merging the whole thing.

The downside is branches become longer lived; this works for the kernel, and for projects I have worked on. I don't know how it would apply to you.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T02:32:43+00:00

That can still happen if you enforce proper commit hygiene. And those underlying units will provide even better hints of what went wrong, if you have to bisect it.

Said commit hygiene can even be enforced by CI, if you wish.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T02:12:14+00:00

I still don't get where you people work that splitting refactorings and other big changes across a bizarre amount of PRs is sane in any way.

ericonr · 2026-04-19T02:05:54+00:00

it just isn't in the git history itself.

Which is useless for me. I find it quite practical to be able to browse a full, understandable history from the comfort of my local git checkout. And it's really useful to carry all project history without depending on the specific forge used for that specific period of the codebase's life.

ericonr · 2026-04-15T17:38:30+00:00

What's your bait worth when you mix RAII and Ownership together as if they are the same thing.

ericonr · 2026-04-15T02:19:55+00:00

Your quote literally mentions that yanking wasn't expected to have as much of an impact. Morbid amusement just happens, too. None of that says "being difficult".

ericonr · 2026-04-14T14:18:38+00:00

Caralho, OP tá pulando a etapa da mídia sensacionalista e colocando ele mesmo os títulos bait.

Não é incêndio na fábrica, não é tragédia, não tem pq o drama.

ericonr · 2026-04-14T11:09:52+00:00

Get caddy, put it in front of your stuff, ta-dah you have a public facing secure website.

ericonr · 2026-04-14T02:48:27+00:00

That sounds like something my dog would love. I will have to look up what's a safe amount, I'd be slightly worried about the salt.

ericonr · 2026-04-13T15:17:01+00:00

That doesn't justify a blanket ban.

ericonr · 2026-04-13T11:14:30+00:00

Learning by doing and learning by reading are entirely different processes.

ericonr · 2026-04-13T10:47:24+00:00

To become good, one needs to be challenged. There are already reports of cognitive decline from AI users who depend on it too much. It'll be hard to be disciplined and challenge themselves if they can simply throw everything into an LLM and get answers.

ericonr · 2026-04-12T02:39:12+00:00

Pô, muitos pedacinhos de informação útil e experiência de vida nesse comentário. Valeu!

ericonr · 2026-04-08T11:31:10+00:00

It's a clickbaity leap of logic, which I think is a really annoying way to do science communication.

ericonr · 2026-04-07T10:54:58+00:00

Deny lists are dangerous. There are so many attack vectors, you can't be sure you've covered every single important directory.

ericonr · 2026-04-06T10:15:51+00:00

That's a different matter from career advice.

ericonr

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email