Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
... rejected by administrative settings for all non feature branches by default.
-
@msdsk ... Yep.
If you rewrite the history of a versioned branch, e.g. one containing tags or commits referencing specific CI builds for versioned distributioning....
Then that is royally fucked afterwards.
History rewrite means exactly that.
When you then have to bisect a regression, try to blame a commit or sth like that... Well. The history is a lie.
References to commits are a lie, commits don't even have to exist anymore - in a nutshell, you broke a foreign key.
Which is why git push with force is almost *always* a bad idea.
Unless you really wanna jinx yourself for eternity. -
msdsk31791y@IntrusionCM
Fortunately it was a feature branch and it will get squashed before getting merged... but yeah, I really had to make sure that some commits just didn't exist anymore if you catch my drift. -
@msdsk then it's fine.... As long as feature isn't tied to versioning.
After all, that's what branches are for. -
So did you push your credentials or comments attacking your coworkers? Or did you just write disgusting spaghetti code?
-
I force-push a lot (likely more than not-force-pushing), but then I like my branches properly rebased. This goes for my own development branches obviously, never main / release branches.
That sudden realization that you REALLY need to do git push -f, always nice.
rant