Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

How can I make --reset-author the default?

+4
−3

I do a lot of rebasing and amending of my topic branches. I don't think it's especially useful for me or my colleagues to see in the logs what date it was when I first started working on the particular topic - only when I actually submitted it.

I know I can explicitly reset the date of my commit to the current time using git commit --amend --reset-author. But is there any way I can change that behaviour to be the default when I rebase or amend, so I don't have to type it every time?

For example: on Monday I put in a new feature and submit the patch for peer review. On Tuesday, my team lead wants me to make some changes to my patch and resubmit. On Wednesday I make the changes, git commit --amend them, and submit the new patch for review. On Thursday the new changes are approved. I pull the master branch and rebase my changes on it.

Right now, that commit entry in my log will still be timestamped Monday, even though I amended on Wednesday and rebased on Thursday. In the future, when we look through the logs, the useful date is when I've finished and push the change (Thursday), not the date of the first commit that no longer exists (Monday). To update the date, now on Thursday, I need to go a git commit --amend --reset-author --no-edit. If I don't do that, it will still say that my change was on a Monday, when it was not.

(Alternatively: am I missing something here? Is it actually useful for people to know that I started work on the topic on Monday, rather than that the change was actually put in on Thursday? Is there a way to see both the datestamp of a commit and the date the commit was actually added to the tree?)

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (8 comments)

3 answers

+6
−0

You should be able to alias the string to something short. For example, I have

git config --global alias.a  'add .'
git config --global alias.ci commit

and so instead of

git add .
git commit -m'Message'

I can do

git a
git ci -m'Message'

In your case, it would be

git config --global alias.ci 'commit --amend --reset-author'

if I am understanding the question correctly.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (3 comments)
+1
−3

Rather that doing git commit --amend --date= every time you commit, you can coalesce commits at merge time using git merge --squash.

That said, for non-trivial topic branches, it is usually valuable to retain the commits in the topic branch to figure out why a particular change was made. For instance, if you are developing a feature in a feature branch, this might require some refactorings, or non-obvious bugfixes, that would be better described in a commit of their own.

In general, I find a detailed and truthful history more valuable than a pretty one: The purpose of history is not to look beautiful, but to be able to figure out why a certain change was made. Yes, unnecessary information may slow the inspection of history, but deleted necessary information will halt it.

PS: You may have noticed that this answer does not mention commit dates. That's because they rarely matter in my experience: When inspecting history, I care about the "what" and "why", not usually the "when". And even when I care about the "when", it'll only be about the year, or the release, not the day. Therefore, the choice of commit frequency or squashing should not be affected by dating considerations.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (7 comments)
+1
−3

Here's the problem:

Wednesday I make the changes, git commit --amend them

Just do a normal commit. You are trying to re-write, or cover up, history. That's generally bad.

The record should reflect what really happened: You submitted a patch, it was rejected for xxx reason, you changed the patch, it was accepted. You have no way of knowing what part of that might be useful information a month, a year, or years in the future. The cost is tiny. Do it right.

I haven't altered anything that has been pushed

Actually you are. You are changing the comments for the commit.

It seems the overall problem is that your group uses commit comments poorly, and therefore values them less.

I should be able to read all the drafts, right down to the first one, rather than just the final printed edition

Yes. That's rather the basis of source control. Remember also that this is for the people the write the software, not the public that just uses the software.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (4 comments)

Sign up to answer this question »