We all know that guy that resolve all the conflicts with a "push --force"

  • 4
    screw that guy lols
  • 21
    Missing a third reply :

    "Okay then: sudo git push --force"
  • 3
    That's me. Sometimes a rebase requires force pushes. But you shouldn't do it in Branches with frequent development.
  • 6
    So what exactly is wrong with rebase and force pushing?

    As long as it is my feature branch, I do all the force pushing I want.

    Or do you really want a tango-dancing history?
  • 5
    @k0pernikus maybe op's talking about a conflict during a merge or a rebase with someone else's branch.
    Then force pushing kind of sounds like "fuck your work, mine is more important".

    Also please use --force-with-lease
  • 1
    I use force when I push and then amend something.

    My branches, my git, my projects, of course.
  • 1
    Use a lube method
  • 2
    I skin that guy. Alive..
  • 2
    A brilliant meme. And just to clarify for others, force push after rebase, amend, squash are completely fine. OP is speaking about people who force push their commits when they see they are getting conflicts instead of actually fixing the conflicts
  • 0
    @k0pernikus I don't have much against rebasing but I prefer a tango-dance history because it represents what is actually going on
  • 1
    @PaulTheSaltyDev It represents the actual (messy) workflow. While developing commit messages as "templating" or"wip" are fine, yet on the stage of the pull request I want one commit with a commit messaging explaining the feature.

    Once you adapt feature commits achieved through squashing and rebasing, history becomes fun and useful to work with instead of a cludge. (git revert and cherry-pick become fun to use) at at best the history is a collection of flat commits

    In my experience people will rarely use the git history if it's a tango one.
  • 0
    how do i give you more than one ++?
Add Comment