chenhan

Your pull request shows exactly what I am talking about. For every force-push it has direct links to the old commit, the new commit and the diff.

Pick the first force push in your PR. It says

matheusmoreira force-pushed the matheusmoreira:binary-decoding branch from aec04b3 to 87a0b3c on 5 Nov 2019

Click on 'force-pushed'. That's the diff of force-push.

Click on 'aec04b3'. That's the commit before force-push.

Click on '87a0b3c'. That's the new commit in the force-push.

I will elaborate why I think the two points in my comment above are important.

Git Rebase, Git bisect and other operations display the commit summary line when they get stuck with merge conflicts or find an issue, so I find good commit summary lines very helpful during those operations. Without good commit messages, resolving issues during those operations can get confusing. This is one of the reasons why writing good commit messages are important.

I see many developers working on their PR branch and constantly merging new commits from master into the PR branch as the master keeps moving ahead. It creates a big mess of merges in both directions-- (A) from master to PR branch during development and (B) later again from PR branch to master when the PR gets merged. The first set of merges from master to PR branch are totally unnecessary. It adds nothing meaningful to the commit history. They are just extra commits to scroll through while looking at git log. Every time the master branch moves ahead, just rebase your PR branch on master. The commit history remains clean and minimal. A good PR workflow teaches you that.

Having said that, merge commits from PR branch to master are totally fine. They do add something meaningful. They show the point at which a PR was merged into the main project.

It is a problem in mailing lists but GitHub has good tooling around it. Every time you force-push, GitHub keeps and provides direct links to the old commit, the new commit and the diff between the two commits. Every force push appears as its own diff on the GitHub PR page.

How is GitLab doing in this area? Does GitLab show diffs for force-pushes?

This is a good article that covers how to communicate in a pull request. I think there are two other essentials in making good pull requests.

1. Good commit messages. Follow this guide: https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/

2. Following the pull request workflow correctly. Follow this guide: https://github.com/susam/gitpr

Writing good and consistent commit messages make the commit log easy to read and search.

Pull request workflow is equally important. It is kind of a rules of engagement that co-developers follow to keep working on their stuff concurrently. It keeps unnecessary merges to minimum and keeps the commit history clean.

By following these two things, you are not only going to be nice to your co-developers but you are going to be nice to your managers and release departments too who could look at your commit log and figure out what bugs were fixed and what features were released.

Is it really sending 1.3 MB of content over the wire? My network tab in browser shows only 75 KB of transfer size.

When I read this, I immediately began thinking if there is someone I know who has been involved in both science/math and TV/movies and the name that popped up for me was Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan has Erdos-Bacon number of 6.

I never really understood Git until I read this tutorial: https://github.com/susam/gitpr

Things began to click for me as soon as I read this in its intro section:

Beginners to this workflow should always remember that a Git branch is not a container of commits, but rather a lightweight moving pointer that points to a commit in the commit history.

    A---B---C
            ↑
         (master)

    A---B---C---D
                ↑
             (master)

This "moving pointer" model of Git branches led me to instant enlightenment. Now I can apply this model to other complicated operations too like conflict resolution during rebase, interactive rebase, force pushes, etc.

If I had to select a single most important concept in Git, I would say it is this: "A branch is merely a pointer to the tip of a series of commits."

For the curious, the ISO standard is ISO/IEC 14977. It is available here: https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/

Direct link to the standard: https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/s0...

But of course, as shanka commented, it isn't a standard that is followed practically. This is just a demonstration of https://xkcd.com/927/ in real life.

GCP documentation is the worst I have come across so far. The GCP documentation seems to have multiple personalities. It is as if the different parts of the documentation were written by different teams in different corners of the company.

I have to often disregard the documentation and get into the gcloud (their Python-based CLI and API) to understand what the heck is going on and their CLI/API code is no good either. Layers and layers of abstraction in their code only to make some REST API calls. The amount of over-engineering and abstraction that is present in their Python code would put even Java SimpleBeanFactoryAwareAspectInstanceFactory developers to shame.