The Git history command deserves more attention
The author argues that the 'git history' command is an underutilized tool that simplifies complex branch management and commit rebasing. It offers a native alternative to third-party tools like 'jj' for developers looking to streamline their Git workflow.
Why it matters
Improving developer productivity and version control efficiency is a constant focus in the software engineering industry.
Working with lots of changes in parallel on git can be painful. You end up juggling branches and commits, and running scary rebase -i commands that can leave your tree in a half-broken state if you so much as sneeze.
jj , an alternative to git , gets discussed a lot these days ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) and is often pitched as a solution. While I'm very sold on the problems jj is trying to solve, the way it solves them hasn't quite hit home with me. Every 3 months, for the last 1.5 years, I try it out for a few days, really trying to make it part of my workflow but eventually I give up and go back to git [1].
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in