You're misunderstanding the purpose i'm describing. Imagine 100 commits a day, maybe more. (I worked at a company that averaged 500 or more commits a day to the master branch. There were 1000 developers working in a monorepo). Some code is out in production, and suddenly we realize a specific commit is causing a problem. The idea here is to revert the commit as soon as you can, and then spend your time fixing it. When reverting code is easy, and the company has good logging to identify problems, you can deploy more often. It's a good thing.
But to enable this "revert-first" culture, you have to design your commits to basically be super easy to revert. That means no merges in the master branch, you want to keep your revision history as clean as possible. One commit, as little dependencies as possible. Rebase is the right tool to use for this. The goal is a tidy linear history.
> But to enable this "revert-first" culture, you have to design your commits to basically be super easy to revert. That means no merges in the master branch, you want to keep your revision history as clean as possible.
How are these concepts related to each other? Merges don't make reverting any harder.
It was actually quite clean, and the environment was extremely stable. The trick is, every commit was "self-contained". Reverting it would go to another previous stable version. Creating a self-contained commit can be done many ways, and rebase is one common tool used to do it. Another is the use of git merge with --squash and a cherry-pick.
Sorry again, you're not understanding my point. Git revert is of course used... but i'm not worried about the mechanics of the revert itself. I'm worried about each revert being a "self-contained" piece. That the project was stable after the revert. That's the bit that was important. A Linear history of commits is the important bit. Not how to do a revert.
Git revert has undesired side effects for merges. If you have a merge-only workflow (GitFlow, for example), and your pull request breaks something, a revert commit will not help you.
After a revert, all the commits that were merged, are still merged, but then they're deleted. The next time you pull, git will delete the changes in your working branch.
In a merge workflow, you have to either fail forward (fix the problem, rather than backing out the merge), or reset/rebase the shared branch, and email repair instructions to everyone on the team.
You're misunderstanding the purpose i'm describing. Imagine 100 commits a day, maybe more. (I worked at a company that averaged 500 or more commits a day to the master branch. There were 1000 developers working in a monorepo). Some code is out in production, and suddenly we realize a specific commit is causing a problem. The idea here is to revert the commit as soon as you can, and then spend your time fixing it. When reverting code is easy, and the company has good logging to identify problems, you can deploy more often. It's a good thing.
But to enable this "revert-first" culture, you have to design your commits to basically be super easy to revert. That means no merges in the master branch, you want to keep your revision history as clean as possible. One commit, as little dependencies as possible. Rebase is the right tool to use for this. The goal is a tidy linear history.
> But to enable this "revert-first" culture, you have to design your commits to basically be super easy to revert. That means no merges in the master branch, you want to keep your revision history as clean as possible.
How are these concepts related to each other? Merges don't make reverting any harder.
That sounds quite chaotic and impossible to keep stable. I wonder who was responsible to find problems and fix the master after messing up?
It was actually quite clean, and the environment was extremely stable. The trick is, every commit was "self-contained". Reverting it would go to another previous stable version. Creating a self-contained commit can be done many ways, and rebase is one common tool used to do it. Another is the use of git merge with --squash and a cherry-pick.
git revert is exactly the tool for the situation you are describing
Sorry again, you're not understanding my point. Git revert is of course used... but i'm not worried about the mechanics of the revert itself. I'm worried about each revert being a "self-contained" piece. That the project was stable after the revert. That's the bit that was important. A Linear history of commits is the important bit. Not how to do a revert.
Git revert has undesired side effects for merges. If you have a merge-only workflow (GitFlow, for example), and your pull request breaks something, a revert commit will not help you.
After a revert, all the commits that were merged, are still merged, but then they're deleted. The next time you pull, git will delete the changes in your working branch.
In a merge workflow, you have to either fail forward (fix the problem, rather than backing out the merge), or reset/rebase the shared branch, and email repair instructions to everyone on the team.
Create a feature branch, revert the revert, and then fix the problem. It sounds a little weird but it works fine.
It’s a lot of paperwork to avoid a perfectly safe and normal git command.
5 replies →