lindeng

Interactively rebasing your local changes instead of sharing a hodgepodge of brain vomit is great, but don't go around rebasing history that's already out there between a team of developers unless you have a really, really good reason to.

I did specify that rewriting shared history is going to cause you trouble (unless you really know your way around things), but apparently it wasn't clear enough

Give me magit+org on top of a more modern foundation than GNU Emacs and I'll be set for life. I wish Emacs would let go of its "It's Free GNU, baby!"-past and instead focus more on user adoption and innovation. Emacs has such a brilliant community, but the project itself feels as stagnant as Vim did right before the community gave Bram the finger and made Neovim..

"- To commit you `commit`, to undo a commit you `reset --hard HEAD^`"

You're not meant to delete commits like that. Git encourages you to stop "lying about the past", and you will run into a fair amount of trouble if you try to do so with shared history. You don't remove a commit "backwards" and change history; you add a new commit that undoes the previous one (git revert)

Paying user here too, big fan. I've had several adventures with Emacs (mostly vanilla, some Doom), but always find myself returning to (Neo)vim due to performance and the perceived Windows-hostility of the project.

I mention this because I, too, fell in love with org-mode and magit, and for a while I kept using Emacs only for those tools. Org quickly became a cornerstone of my workflow and made it easy to separate notes and tasks for different clients. I think Obsidian leaves maybe a bit much up to our imagination, but that's part of the beauty of it, imo

Currently sticking Obsidian (because it's discoverable, fast and extensible) and Neovim (only because Emacs is too antiquated)