News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Show HN I made a git rebase TUI editor. Parent comment

Re:Show HN I made a git rebase TUI editor by keybored on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:06PM (#41839493)
If I really care about the version control history? Yeah.

Alternatively I could stick with git(1) which does all of this stuff out of the box. Instead of having to learn a superflouous (for the job) API.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN I made a git rebase TUI editor by skydhash on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:13PM (#41839581)
I mean the PR data. The main advantage of a forge like Github are being web browseable, working great as a backup, and the PRs (and other stuff like artifacts storage and CI). All of these have alternatives and are optional. And the API is comprehensive enough to not feel locked in.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN I made a git rebase TUI editor by keybored on Monday October 14, 2024 @02:25PM (#41840358)
And I mean the “squashed” history. Because that’s what this subthread is about: the claim that it is available in GitHub so therefore it is fine.

I want the meaningful commits to be in the Git history. Because that’s a better place than the forge.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN I made a git rebase TUI editor by skydhash on Monday October 14, 2024 @02:40PM (#41840513)
When creating a squashed merge from the PR, it presents an interface for the commit message. You can put the information you want there.

It’s not a requirement. I wrote in another thread[0] why I like this methodology, but to each project its own.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839282

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN I made a git rebase TUI editor by keybored on Monday October 14, 2024 @02:52PM (#41840626)
I know that you can write information in the commit message.

That is not sufficient. Which I explained here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839438

[ Parent | on HN ]