Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As a frequent user of fixups, this feels like a solution for already broken workflows.

> Instead of manually finding commit SHAs for git commit --fixup

Assuming you are using fixups, is this actually a problem?

I could see this being a possibility if you are: A. not practicing atomic commits or B. have so many commits in your branch that this is a chore.

A. seems unlikely if you are already using fixups and B. seems like a problem worth solving properly rather than going around.

To sum up, I'm not convinced by the elevator pitch. However, I am keenly aware that the workflows of developers differ vastly across industry, company size, technology etc. I'd be interested to understand what problems this or similar tools solve?



What solutions have you seen for problem (B)?

The open source example is hard to fix AFAIK. Everything needs to be a PR, some changes to older code bases are simply going to be either large or multi-stepped (many commits, and sending them all as stacked PRs is often not efficient enough to be effective). In industry, I think there are more solutions available. Though, overall, I am very curious how you would go about solving B.


> Assuming you are using fixups, is this actually a problem?

No. They made a whole tool around a not-actually problem.

Sure you can have a 30-commit branch. Find some OSS project where someone has been doing a large project on a branch for two months because the maintainer hasn’t accepted it yet.


How would you manage long-lived branches that are periodically rebased against the master branch (when there is a release, for example)?


Tools like this are useful for users who are not power users.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: