New commits to save code.
My friend who works at #JPMorgan Chase told me that they #commit to save whatever changes they made, could that be true? The conversation began when we were talking about #git commands and they were like "wtf, I didn't knew git commit --amend or rebase existed". They would just create a new commit each time, using it like a save button, no revert as well. Their commit history had hundreds of commits like these. Do you guys have such poor quality control, #JPMorgan Chase people? TC: 140k #git #tech #softwareengineer #code
LOL OP must be a new grad
Lol, yeah. 😁
Excessive commits are messy but you are fixating on the wrong things
CiCD
Amending has real downsides like fucking up other people working on the branch and is widely discouraged. Commiting a lot is not a problem
If they change a comment, bamm! New commit. If they declare a new variable as part of a larger task, bamm! a new commit. It's not breaking up a task to be granular but more like commit for each line of code they change which has no meaning. They kinda test their code this way as well. 😅😆
You arent supposed to be working on the same branch 🤦♂️ Seems like Google's internal vcs has resulted in engineers not knowing how Git works.
Commit messages only matter when you have bad testing/processes for merging code. It is very rare that I have any need to look at commit messages these days.
Do you also believe that unit tests are for people who are bad at coding? :P
Testing is exactly what I'm advocating for if you read my post??? If you do testing properly it should be very rare that you need to revert commits and that is honestly the only time I look at the commit history. I find the CR descriptions to be much more useful(and truthful) than the commit history.
You dont just squash into a single commit when you merge upstream? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying
Once the functionality works, they are good. Hardly any code reviews, no git history checked.
Kidoo, usually they are squashed or rebased before merging to main branch.. You gotta learn a lot. Don't fixate ok on few things.. It's perfectly ok to have multiple commits on a dev branch.
Show them ‘git rebase’ and really blow their mind
They were in disbelief. They hardly have code review. They just see the functionality, if it works they are good.
Depends if it's on their main branch, that's bad. In their own dev branch they can do whatever.
It's the main branch. They only know git add and git commit they said.
If they know what git rebase is then they are fine.
They only knew git add and git commit 😅 that's why this post.
Lifeprotip - refer to the person as they; he/she gets tedious while typing. Ohh and TC OR GTFO
Added