Hacker News Reader

Comment by gte910h | Hacker News Reader

This is supposed to be light hearted?

What am I supposed to rebut? He gives little reason why the features says get broken are more important than the other things. He just states it.

View on HN

That's an interesting response given that I spent quite a few words talking about how great `git blame`, `git bisect`, `git rerere`, and `git branch --contains` are and why rewriting history breaks them. Was it tl;dr? Or did I not get my point across effectively?

You didn't explain why rewriting local, private history breaks any of those things unless you keep your local, private branches around indefinitely in un-rewritten form. If I rebase, it replaces my previous branch, not extends it. `git rebase` only breaks bisection if you are using it incorrectly (on public commits).

> He gives little reason why the features says get broken are more important than the other things. He just states it.

I'm having trouble parsing the above, so I may be responding inappropriately, but it seems to me the OP is saying:

Here are some awesome and dangerous tools A, B, and C that people like to use and recommend. There are pitfalls to be aware of, analogous to lying, when using these tools. Here is where such "lying" gets you into trouble: X, Y, Z, etc. If you use or depend on X, Y, or Z, then be cautious when using A, B, and C.

I agree, the author just denounces things as 'lies', so therefore they're bad, with some pretty loose reasoning as to why. Yes, it breaks things like git bisect if you use it incorrectly. And?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com