Establishes good habits when building features: when prioritising clean commit messages we start adding features in a more consistent fashion, grouping pieces of relevant code together by default (as we know that if we don’t, we may need a rebase) and ultimately only using git rebase when necessary.
This really makes your life and that of your reviewer easier in the long run, when you have a clear additional reference to what was done when in a pull request in the form of clear commit messages.
Less work when describing a pull request.
Control over a commit history, coupled with the more traditional use of git rebase - rebasing specific commits onto other branches (a topic that I wont be getting into right now, more information can be found here), when combined, are powerful tools to have in our development artillery.
Isolated features can be rolled out more easily as related commits are grouped together.
There is one main reason, clarity, which takes the form of grouping features in a logical way as well as writing better, clearer more consistent commit messages. Why change history when you can just alter the present to suit you? We can change history, purely for the sake of clarity in our commit messages. There is a third (and much better) option. We could just avoid making any mistakes ever, or we could be really creative with our commit messages to mask the reality that the current branch is a disaster that may or may not be fixed at some point. It’s fine if your code doesn’t work the way you want first time, and yes you might get frustrated when it doesn’t (which is also normal) - but we should really not be exhibiting this in our Git commit history. 10 commits into our project and already there is no real consistency. Followed by the feat and fix prefix touches which are cute, however, by the time we get to the deploy code to staging section I can see the frustration starting to unfold. Reading bottom to top: We started off “okay” with the obligatory initial commit commit. It is not possible to edit conflicts directly in DSS.Have you ever seen a commit history something like this? Pull does a “pull –rebase” action: it fetches the latest changes from the remote and attempts to rebase your local changes on top of the remote changes. Push will fail if the remote has been updated first. Push pushes the current active branch to the remote. Once the remote is associated, new options become available:įetch fetches the latest changes and branches from the remote (but does not touch the local copy) For more details on working with Git remotes, see Working with Git. To associate a remote, click on the change tracking indicator, select “Add a remote”, and enter the URL of the remote. It is strongly recommended to have a good understanding of the Git model and wording before using this feature.
0 kommentar(er)
