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.

Post History

37%
+1 −3
Q&A How can I make --reset-author the default?

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 ref...

posted 4y ago by Olin Lathrop‭  ·  edited 4y ago by Olin Lathrop‭

Answer
#3: Post edited by user avatar Olin Lathrop‭ · 2020-11-17T14:10:12Z (about 4 years ago)
  • Here's the problem:
  • <blockquote>Wednesday I make the changes, <code>git commit --amend</code> them</blockquote>
  • 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.
  • <blockquote>I haven't altered anything that has been pushed</blockquote>
  • 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.
  • Here's the problem:
  • <blockquote>Wednesday I make the changes, <code>git commit --amend</code> them</blockquote>
  • 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.
  • <blockquote>I haven't altered anything that has been pushed</blockquote>
  • 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.
  • <blockquote>I should be able to read all the drafts, right down to the first one, rather than just the final printed edition</blockquote>
  • 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.
#2: Post edited by user avatar Olin Lathrop‭ · 2020-11-17T14:05:04Z (about 4 years ago)
  • Here's the problem:
  • <blockquote>Wednesday I make the changes, <code>git commit --amend</code> them</blockquote>
  • 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.
  • Here's the problem:
  • <blockquote>Wednesday I make the changes, <code>git commit --amend</code> them</blockquote>
  • 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.
  • <blockquote>I haven't altered anything that has been pushed</blockquote>
  • 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.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Olin Lathrop‭ · 2020-11-16T15:59:17Z (about 4 years ago)
Here's the problem:

<blockquote>Wednesday I make the changes, <code>git commit --amend</code> them</blockquote>

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.