• Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think this is a fake quote that somebody made up for an Internet comedy bit, since it seems unlikely for Hollywood actress Sydney Sweeney to have such uncharacteristically strong opinion on software version control, of all things.

    Because she of all people would know that there isn’t anything wrong with using git merge, and it ultimately comes down to personal preference to what you are used to.

  • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I know this is a meme post, but can someone succinctly explain rebase vs merge?

    I am an amateur trying to learn my tool.

    • letsgo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Merge gives an accurate view of the history but tends to be “cluttered” with multiple lines and merge commits. Rebase cleans that up and gives you a simple A->B->C view.

      Personally I prefer merge because when I’m tracking down a bug and narrow it down to a specific commit, I get to see what change was made in what context. With rebase commits that change is in there, but it’s out of context and cluttered up with zillions of other changes from the inherent merges and squashes that are included in that commit, making it harder to see what was changed and why. The same cluttered history is still in there but it’s included in the commits instead of existing separately outside the commits.

      I honestly can’t see the point of a rebased A->B->C history because (a) it’s inaccurate and (b) it makes debugging harder. Maybe I’m missing some major benefit? I’m willing to learn.