13 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
    1. I know a number of my subs and viewers are in India and I've noticed on Twitter and on Abhijit Chavda's channel that there's quite a bit of controversy about the way Indian History is taught to Indian students. That interests me a lot, but what I'm PARTICULARLY interested in is, how World History surveys throughout the world cover world history. If part of this involves continuing the narratives introduced by colonizers, like the Aryan Invasion myth, that's relevant to my question.
  2. May 2021
    1. Preserving history; we often find ourselves using the git blame tool to discover why a certain change was made.
    2. Preserving commit hashes; we use commit hashes in binary names and our issue tracker; ideally, these references remain intact.
    1. If you want the project's history to look as though all files have always been in the directory foo/bar, then you need to do a little surgery. Use git filter-branch with the "tree filter" to rewrite the commits so that anywhere foo/bar doesn't exist, it is created and all files are moved to it:
  3. Oct 2020
    1. A backronym, or bacronym, is an acronym that is assigned to a word that existed prior to the invention of the backronym.
  4. Jul 2020
    2. If the reality is you pushed out a release that doesn't even compile, and then you spotted the typo six minutes later, that's fine, that's what the git repo should show. Don't come to me asking if there's a way to change history so that it seems as if it didn't happen that way. How does that help anybody?

      To answer your question:

      How does that help anybody?

      It keeps the history clean.

      Assuming they push up an amended commit minutes after the bad commit, this shouldn't cause too much of a problem. (Depends how many people are working on it and how often they git pull.)

      How does it help anyone to keep 2 separate commits that, semantically, could and should have been just 1? How does it help anyone to have a permanent record of someone's mistake?

      If it can be easily and quickly fixed, I say go for it!

  5. May 2020
    1. What I think we're lacking is proper tooling, or at least the knowledge of it. I don't know what most people use to write Git commits, but concepts like interactive staging, rebasing, squashing, and fixup commits are very daunting with Git on the CLI, unless you know really well what you're doing. We should do a better job at learning people how to use tools like Git Tower (to give just one example) to rewrite Git history, and to produce nice Git commits.