Timeline for Is using Git Stash as a workflow an antipattern?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2014 at 13:43 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | "You must never EVER destroy other peoples history" - so true. I'd be happier with git if it never even allowed this to happen in the first place. | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 12:33 | comment | added | Greg Burghardt | @wavemode: Fixed the spelling mistake. | |
| Sep 4, 2014 at 12:32 | history | edited | Greg Burghardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2014 at 3:27 | vote | accept | joshin4colours | ||
| Sep 4, 2014 at 2:11 | comment | added | wavemode | How do you know that OP and his team members use git in a manor? They could just as easily work in an office building. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 15:15 | comment | added | RibaldEddie | See my answer below-- while committing to master is an anti-pattern, it's not the real problem. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 14:42 | comment | added | RibaldEddie | I'll provide some more context in an answer of my own. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 13:31 | history | edited | Greg Burghardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2014 at 13:25 | comment | added | Greg Burghardt | @RibaldEddie: I've clarified my answer. It did need some cleaning up. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 13:21 | history | edited | Greg Burghardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarifications about git rebase
|
| Sep 3, 2014 at 13:15 | history | edited | Greg Burghardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarifications about git rebase
|
| Sep 3, 2014 at 12:33 | comment | added | Greg Burghardt | @RibaldEddie: There is nothing wrong with rebasing and rewriting commit history as long as it is local commit history. Once you push those commits, your comment would be correct, but reread my answer. It says: "Before pushing, rebase and squash your commits." That is local commit history, which is entirely under your control. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 5:18 | comment | added | RibaldEddie | Wow, this is not right. First of all, a stash is not outside of a "branching workflow" since under the hood a stash is just another branch. The idea that it is a copy-paste workflow makes no sense. Rebasing is much more like copy-pasting and even worse modifies committed history. Finally, your workflow is completely useless as soon as you need to share work in progress with colleagues since it falls apart as soon as you push changes. How this has six up votes is mind boggling. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 17:05 | history | edited | Greg Burghardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 639 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2014 at 16:59 | history | answered | Greg Burghardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |