On December 26, 2021 4:58 AM, Lemuria wrote: > On 26/12/2021 4:44 pm, Erik Cervin Edin wrote: > >> Alright. I'll take this into account. Unfortunately, before you got > >> to me, I reworded the commits on my local and pushed them to the > >> remote, which resulted in a messy history with duplicate comments. > > > > This easily happens > > Usually when you merge old history back onto rewritten history It's > > easy to confuse what is what when rewriting history > > > > If you find yourself rewriting and force pushing a lot you might find > > the following script helpful > > https://gist.github.com/CervEdin/2e72388c3f7d9b30d961ec3b64d08761 > > It shows: > > - The graphs of differences between local and upstream of a branch > > - The difference between local and upstream > > - Prompts to force push with lease > > I don't force push a lot, but regardless I'll make a note of that. The process is used by some teams, like OpenSSL, for WIP pull requests. It follows a git rebase --autosquash -i. The principle is to clean up the PR down to a single final commit for approval. It is more work for the contributor, but the committers seem to prefer having everything in one commit. This requires a git push -f. > > > >> But at least my GitHub page has more green on it! > > > > If you want green you can fork > > https://github.com/cervEdin/vanity > > > > I'm surprised how GitHub hasn't taken that down yet. Well, spamming > commits means more green and isn't that good for the environment, right? I don’t follow this. Sorry. -Randall
