GITKRAKENOLD VERSION FREE

Bringing in the reflog is mostly irrelevant to the concept of history rewriting. This makes a difference because your wording implies that there is some inherent structural invariant that makes git history immutable - and there certainly isn’t, there’s just some default policy for how otherwise unreachable objects are recoverable.Īlso I think when most people say (correctly ) that git history is mutable it is that by default it is easy to rewrite the history of any branch and basically manipulate the commit graph in any way, and all can be done with the standard command line tools. At that point the commit is truly unreachable and a gc will make it go away forever.įYI the commands git reflog expire -expire=now -all & git gc -prune=now should do the trick about truly deleting commit objects for good.Īlso the filter commands allow rewriting history. But that can be pruned/expired with the very same regular reflog command you refer to in your post (or just change the unreachable expiry from 30 days to now). Make the commit unreachable from all regular branches (this can be as simple as a reset or rebase - and at this point is effectively rewriting history), then gc. These are both just straight up incorrect. > It is by design impossible to modify or delete an existing commit with regular Git commands. > It's not, because Git history is immutable, you can't change it. I wonder if we do things wrong somehow since git seems to cause issues for so many people. The result is that we spend almost 0 time on “git” in our organisation. Most people where I work use GitKraken, mostly out of habit, but I think more and more are switching to VSC extensions and some might even use the cli. But if you’re heading home and want to commit something, or you simply commit as often as you click cmd+s, you can do it with no useful comment because it’ll get squashed anyway.

The only thing you really need to teach “juniors” is that they will hate themselves unless they merge main into their dev branches regularly.

GITKRAKENOLD VERSION FREE

You’re mostly free to do what you want on your dev/name branch. They do their things, other devs do theirs, similarly on dev/othername branches and then when whatever is complete it gets squash merged into the main branch with a direct link to the kanban work item. Behind the scenes this spins up a build and a deployment to a dev/name deployment slot whenever something is pushed to it. When a dev wants to change something, they pick a work item on our “mostly kanban” board, and create a branch from there with a dev/name. Our setup is fairly basic, you have a main branch, you can only push things too it by squash merge pull request that are linked to a work item, and you can only do so after whatever you’ve build has gone through the release pipeline, which among other things involve spinning up an instance of it for POs or whatever to test. I support it, but I also wonder why other teams seem to spend so much time on git than we do.

Gitkrakenold version