Comment by wickedchicken | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wickedchicken | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> However, I could use rebase to start combining loosely related commits, trading the time resolution for clarity in the commit history.

In general, your commits should be the smallest atomic operation that makes sense. When people talk about 'clean history,' they're talking about working in the awesome workflow git provides:

1. Write half-written broken code. 2. Fix that code up. 3. Add some more onto that. 4. Fix a typo! 5. Forgot to update the README.

Now, you could push that to master, but then the main master is littered with commit messages like 'oops' and 'typo.' Instead, you can rebase 5-1 onto the latest master, squash them together, and have one 'nice' commit that only has the cleaned up final changes.

This is one of the most powerful things about git: in a private repo, you can commit all kinds of garbage and half-written stuff without caring. When you want to make your stuff public, rebase and squash, then send it out. Be careful though! Only rebase your own private branches, or you're gonna have a bad time™.

Okay, that is basically keeping with my current understanding (though I'm not sure how much I live up to the "only have working history in the public repo" rule).

There is the other issue I raised, however: is there a good way to group a series of commits that happen to be towards a single distinct goal. Using branches is a clear step in that direction, but it seems like a nightmare to perform a rebase like you described if the commits are mixed and I would like the end result to involve grouping via branches. That is confusing, hopefully this will clear it up:

1. Bugfix in function1. 2. Bugfix in function2. 3. New feature in function2. 4. Bugfix in function1. 5. Bugfix in function2

...and we want in the end:

      /-- 1 ---- 4 ---\
  ---<                 >--HEAD
      \- 2 -- 3 -- 5 -/

Can rebase do this easily? Is this a good idea (it seems like it is to me)? The programmer would have to confirm that the code works at every state.

So I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but let me put it this way: with a little more git craziness, you can crack apart a commit and separate it into two. This is good if you did two unrelated changes to a file, committed that, and realized you wanted two separate commits later.

The basic process is:

1. git rebase -i, and change a commit to 'edit' 2. git reset HEAD^, this 'undoes' the commit and leaves the changes in your directory as if you had written the code but hadn't committed it yet 3. git status 4. git add <filename> -p, this lets you add commits to your file a chunk at a time. first, add all the commits as a part of commit one. skip the parts you want for commit two. 5. git commit (do not do git commit -a here) and write the message for your first commit 6. now your working directory will be all the changes for commit two. git commit -a if you want all of them 7. git rebase --continue

This page[1] has a more concise answer, but leaves out the git commit -p part.

Note that if you mess up in rebase-land, you can always git rebase --abort. If you come out of the rebase and everything looks lost ('oh god I lost my data!'), use git reflog and pull up the hash of where you were before. Your data is still there.

Another note: if your commits are already separate, you can use rebase to selectively squash and reorder them. Read the manual on git rebase -i, if you rearrange commits and only squash some I think you'll get what I'm talking about.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6217156/how-to-break-a-pr...

Switching branches is cheap, I'd say the "right" way to get a tree like you want is to have two or even five branches all the time you're working. But I suspect you could make two branches and cherry-pick different sets of commits onto them to get the result you're after. To my mind it wouldn't be worth the effort though; how often do you really care whether the code worked with only 1 and 4 applied?

Right, I would say that it isn't worth the effort. Also, I probably never care about the code with only 1 and 4 applied. So perhaps branches aren't the right way to do what I am describing.

I always saw VC as a systematic way to keep a log of my development so that I could figure out where I may have broken my code. For this purpose, having some sort of meta-data where commits can be grouped would be nice. It would also work to do something like always end my commit messages with some kind of meta-data tag that I could grep the log for. I was just wondering if there was a prescribed/built-in way for Git to handle this.

git-bisect is the standard tool for figuring out where you broke something. I don't know what it does with branching histories though, I tend to effectively linearise my history by rebasing each branch on the trunk head before merging it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com