git-blameall VS git-branchless

Thanks, I knew about -committerdate but not that you can set it as default sort, super useful. A few notes...

1. git columns gets real confusing if you have more data than fits the screen and you need to scroll. Numbers would help...

2. git maintenance sounds great but since I do a lot of rebases and stuff, I am worried: does this lose loose objects faster than gc would? I see gc is disabled but it's not clear.

3. Regarding git blame a little known but super useful script is https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall . (I mean, it's so little known I myself needed to port it to Python 3 and I am no Python developer by any stretch.)

The author mentions git blame which is indeed an important tool but in more complex codebases it's entire possible the original introduction would require several steps because the code was refactored since. For this, git blameall is a wonderful and almost completely unknown utility. https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall Yours truly did a quick Python 3 port this January, mostly using the automated toolset for it and the author, much to my surprise, committed it in a week despite the last commit was in 2013. So the project is not dead :)

Does anyone know whether git blameall https://github.com/ddev/git-blameall is easy to do with Fossil? It's a lesser known tool but I found it incredibly useful (hence why I did the Python 3, mostly automated tools but still).

Yes, but due to its simplicity + extensibility + widespread adoption, I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re still using Git 100+ years from now.

The current trend (most popular and IMO likely to succeed) is to make tools (“layers”) which work on top of Git, like more intuitive UI/patterns (https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit, https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless) and smart merge resolvers (https://github.com/Symbolk/IntelliMerge, https://docs.plasticscm.com/semanticmerge/how-to-configure/s...). Git it so flexible, even things that it handles terribly by default, it handles

> Is this for a case where a bunch of people branch from master@HEAD (lets call this A), then you need to modify A, so you then need to rebase each branch that branched from A individually?

Mainly it's for when you branch from A multiple times, and then modify A. This can happen if you have some base work that you build multiple features on top of. I routinely do this as part of rapid prototyping, as described here: https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless/wiki/Workflow:-div...

`git undo` shows a list of operations it'll execute, which you have to confirm before accepting. Of course, it's ultimately a matter of trust in the tools you use.

What happens is you work somewhere that has stacked diffs and suddenly you learn how to shape your diffs to make them easy to review. Thinking of how folks will review your code in chunks while writing it makes it cleaner. Having small but easy to read diffs makes reviews faster and helps junior devs learn how to review.

Sometimes this doesn’t happen in which case you end up need to split your commit at the end. This is where git utterly fails. You end up needing git split and git absorb to make this productive.

Git split let’s you select which chunks in a commit should belong to it and then splits that into a commit and then you do it again and again until you have lots of commits. You’ll still need to probably test each one but the majority of the work is done

Git absorb takes changes on the top of your stack and magically finds which commit in your stack the each chunk should belong to and amends it to the right commit

You also need git branchless https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless as it lets you move up and down the stack without needing to remember so much git arcana.