Can anyone give a comparison of the two from experience?
I'm painfully familiar with the problem they solve and am delighted to discover they exist.
I'd love some input about how they differ.
I'm painfully familiar with the problem they solve and am delighted to discover they exist.
I'd love some input about how they differ.
- git-autofixup has a changelog
- git-autofixup includes sober, technical documentation that actually explains how it works. OTOH, git-absorb has a great elevator pitch for users that are not so familiar with Git.
- git-autofixup does not have unresolved bugs, unlike git-absorb
- git-absorb creates fixup commits for the last 10 commits, which seems really odd. It's better to use symbolic references like @{upstream}, but it looks like they dont' support this yet?
- git-autofixup is stable and mostly done software, while git-absorb has a sizeable list of todos
- git-autofixup is written in Perl (like some tools in Git itself), making it easier to install than git-absorb which uses Rust.
Then again, as author of this article, I'm obviously biased ;)
Not really; you can pass any commit ref to git-autofixup, and it will create commits only for commits since that ref. So it's for the user to decide :)