ProgrammerHumor
gitIsSoEasy
Discussion
git commit --amend
git push --force
Keeping the history clean by having only one commit đ
Called 'update'
Welcome to gerrit
But now my commit has 2000 lines changed, 15 files removed and 10 added. What do I do now?
What a rookie numbers
Even better: git commit --amend --no-edit
I used to alias this one, I called it git apend (or append? Idk)
I have it aliased to "git whoops". As in "whoops I forgot to remove that debug print".
That's gcane on my machine. Big fan of keeping branches clean, rewriting history is encouraged in our shop, as long as you're the only one working on your branch.Â
We just squash merge, so it doesn't matters how messy your branch is.
Sure makes it easier. But I personally find it obscures too many details in history. I'd rather have a more detailed git blame... I get the approach, its just not one I'd preferÂ
I hate squash merging. Why was this changed? Because someone worked on feature X. That explains nothing.
I agree that squash merging isnât ideal, but is better than getting 30 âfixâ, âfix testâ, âoopsâ, âfix lintâ commits that show the embarrassing stream of consciousness development some devs do.
Luckily the squashed commit includes all of my different commit messages generally into one, so that data isnât lost.
And with GitHub you can see the original commits in the context of the PR that is linked to the squash merged commit.
i have a bunch of aliases on my git config, and `git amend` is the i used the most :)
i also have a `git nuke` command, which removes every branch but main/master/stage
and a `git prune` which lists the command i need to run to remove all merged branches from origin (still need to copy and paste them, because no fucking way do i trust git NOT to mess this up)
My hack to re-trigger CI.
Or of you're feeling fancy, git push --force-with-lease
No. That is for children. Big dogs dgaf about with-lease.
"I push now! Good luck everybody else!"
git add -u && git commit âamend âno-edit && git push -f origin HEAD
--amend --no-edit
Git status in between every command cuz why not
Gotta do it otherwise the files will trick me
git diff
Ah, right, that's all what was in this commit. Looks good.
âŚ
git diff
You can actually set that up as a script
git pull git status git add . git commit -m âupdâ git push
git stash push git pull git stash pop
Very useful for cases where conflicts with local changes happen.
This way, it is easier to deal with merge conflicts for me
I was wondering what git stash push does since Iâve never used it. Apparently itâs the same as just git stash
Yea it is useful when you want to stash one file, e.g. git stash push main.c
Can just use git pull --autostash
git gud -f scrub
âgit commit -am âmsgââ
Why many args when few possible
Itâs like when my last company couldnât believe I didnât use a gui to manage my commits. Just leave me and my commands alone man, I like them, they work, I know my lane đ
Tbh sometimes I find the GUI more difficult to use than command lines
I come from a sysadmin background and I just am more comfortable with CLI than GUI for 90% of tasks
Same. It's also just drastically faster most times anyway.
GitHub desktop is navigable by a toddler
Iâve used it for pull/commit/push/checkout (the basics).
How is it for the more advanced stuff?
VSCode and Github desktop make resolving merge conflicts pretty easy. I don't know how you would do this without the GUI offered by VScode at a minimum for comparing diffs.
Cherrypicking commits or going back in time is easy. Stash is easy. Not sure really what else you would need.
I do use VS Code for resolving merge conflicts, but everything else is done via CLI. I just learned that way, and it throws me whenever I see someone using a GUI for it. I tried using one once, and it lasted about half an hour.
Yeah- that's the problem. It's not usable for any mildly complex task.
Can you give me an example of a âcomplex taskâ scenario you encounter regularly? I work on a large team and we follow fairly strict rules about how/when to create branches and merge them. In several years Iâve never seen anything that the command line would be better suited for other than flexing on interns
Isnt flexing the main goal here? Everything else is secondary
I'm trying to get a paycheck and spend as much time outside of that playing video games and rock climbing. Posturing is for peacocks.
I don't use gui at all with git, not because it's not suitable for complex tasks, but because I find gui too complex for me. I understand the commands, I know exactly what I need to type, but with the gui I have no idea what I need to do and what effects my actions will have. Don't want to spend time learning that as well.
It's kinda cringe seeing devs scared of UIs. I use SourceTree for work, since our repos are in bitbucket, and I don't believe command line could be faster than just clicking stuff when you know what you're doing.
I am the only cli user at my current workplace with 30 Devs.
Guess who always gets called when someone fucks their shit up via VS Code or a Jetbrains IDE.
As a dev lead I empower my other members to find a way that works for them, but if they need my help with it then we're going to do it my way.
Thats fair haha nobody wants to see the junior banging their head against a brick wall because theyre too stubborn to use a shovel and insist on digging with their bare hands
Meanwhile if I remember in college everyone raised their eyebrows if you dared use emacs over vim. Thereâs a definitely a superiority the less you used guis there
Emacs is not a GUI app.
Yup, Emacs is an Operating System
Wow, I'm the only person I know who uses GUI for git. People always be giving me shit for it.
Anything you are familiar with and know how to use is good
Git is very powerful but imo if you need to use those complex features regularly youâre doing something wrong. Command line is the best way to use git imo. Keep it simple. The GUIs are all way more complex than they need to be
Iâm in between a GUI and CLI with lazygit, a TUI. Since Iâm in the terminal already itâs super convenient, easy to use and helpful to visualize whatâs going on in the repo.
A little simplistic IMO. I find myself doing a lot of git fetch upstream, git checkout main, git merge upstream/main, git log, and git rebase -i.
Or my favourite git feature that is usually easier to do with CLI: rebasing without checking out the parent branch:
$ git fetch origin main:main
$ git rebase main
Agree completely. Itâs a fun meme, but people that sloppy merge completely mess up the history log. You are doing it right đŤĄ
git push --force | kms
What is kms
Kill myself
[deleted]
sudo apt install kms
Ahh rookie mistake...first do sudo apt update
git reset --hard
git reset --hard origin/branch_name
For when you totally fucked up your local branch and want to redo
Yup. Or, as I call that situation, Tuesday.
Edit: nixed a trailing 's'.
rm -rf âno-preserve-root /
Then take a vacation.
There is so much fucking around with git history I could have avoided by just doing a hard reset and copying my changes back in. :/
soft reset to the commit before the start of your local changes should resolve almost all of these issues, no?
git reset --hard so i trick my githook to not run conan update on git pull from main
I also use: git clean -df
When reset hard doesn't get rid of stuff like folders
Masters dont use branches then?
Can't imagine life without branches and rebase
Git add; git commit -m; git push works perfectly well with branches, what are you on about?
You would likely need git switch, git branch or some of the extra parameters for commit and push for using branches
I created and switched to the branch before doing work, i'll let the git push tell me what the full command is for pushing a new branch and just copy/paste ezpz
Unironically. Trunk Based Development is hot right now. Requires a CI pipeline with strong automated testing and judicious use of feature toggles.
Personally I prefer, Github flow (not gitflow), short lived feature branches and PRs to main with strong automated testing and some use of feature toggles.
gitflow/mulitple long lived branches is where most people's problems with git arise.
I was in a team where we had task branches with PRs to story branches, and when these stories where done and approved, they where merged to master. We did not care about rebasing/ keeping the history clean, though.
Where was this so I know not to apply there?
Dev religions are hilarious.
Same here, make branch, do some changes, update it from main and make PR. In 6 years and 3 companies, Github desktop was enough for me except for a few times that I needed some complex commands.
In one company we had main and dev branches, feature branches are made from dev, hotfix made from main. After feature is done, it is merged in the dev and main is merged in dev. After release is ready, main is updated from the dev and release is made.
What you call github flow we just refer to as a flavor of trunk based at my company, but I also prefer it. We do a branch for each jira card, so they usually don't live longer than a week.
gitflow/mulitple long lived branches is where most people's problems with git arise.
100% agree
It drives me insane, but my current boss just works out of main.
gst ga . gc -m "message"
Shocked to not see a single comment about git add -p
I like my PHPStorm buttons <3 :D
Except rebase cherrypick merge I didn't use anything from the long list in ny whole carrier
Sounds like you're working on a very simple system
OP doesn't get git and needs to potray themselves as 145 IQ
pro tip: use
git commit -a -m
# or use: git commit -am
No need for an additional command(git add . )
Note that this will not add new untracked files.
Yeah but, git commit -am is two characters shorter...
that's the right one
Thanks for the code review.
my exact comment, had to scroll down so far to see this
Lol why should someone expire the ref log!? It's like cutting your own safety net.
I just click the plus button, the commit button, and the push button in VSCode
I... er... use my IDE's inbuilt git tools.
100% fine
That said, it will be better for your career to know how to use git CLI because there are so many times you will need it when working with servers.
But using your IDE or GUI is still absolutely fine and can even be better in some ways.
`git commit -am . && git push`
git merge to prod without pull request đ so ez
git add --all && git commit --message "$(fortune -n 72 -s)"
Super ultra pro hacker tip: you can use git commit -am and skip git add . this way - which saves you time you can use later for resolving merge conflicts.
far right only works if your whole team is on that level. otherwise you get stuck cleaning up the mess
Anyone who rebases should be cast into the sea.
I am Jedi so I use more force
git commit -a -m "" ?
Bruh. That empty commit message isnât even human. Step it up. At least do âSome changes.â See that proper capitalization and punctuation?? GOML
git commit
git push
git good
This is just cope for people bad at git
This is very inaccurate.
The middle git commands are a nonsense sequence. Why would one be using both git merge and git cherry pick? Never use git merge if you can avoid it. Also you only have to mess with the reflog unless you fucked up bad. I guess heâs crying because heâs got no fucking clue what is going on.
As for the top end of the bell curve. No gitâs not that easy. You need to rebase, cherry pick, and even do an occasional reset. All that guy is doing is best creating merge conflicts or worst case breaking the build.
palisiekurwa = !sh -c 'git add . && git commit -m \"palilo sie\" --no-gpg-sign --no-verify && git push --force && echo \"Ok, now RUN!\"'
https://github.com/jakubnabrdalik/gitkurwa/blob/master/configNSFW_PL
My 25 years of experience senior -> "just use fork dude, we're not in paleolithic anymore"
âTFS is easierâ
âNoooo! You have to use git!â
âTFS is easierâ
TFS
is easieruses up all your fucking disk space because it stores a full copy of all branches locally
I fucking hated cleaning up after TFS.
gcaa
gpsup
Alright but git commit amend no edit is goated
I map to this graph so hard haha. 15 years in and Iâm on the far right of it. 7 years ago, I was the middle part đđđ
I am so glad I get to use fork so I don't have to remember any of the advanced command syntax: https://git-fork.com/
âI love my git history linearâ - Any Java developer
git is the Devilâs playground
I'd say the 2 most useful apart from your usual suspects are
Cherry pick and worktree
when things go bad
git reset main
git commit -am "let's try again"
git push origin --force
git add -A more than git add . for me.
$ git commit -a -m âWIPâ 50 times a day
how does that quote goes ?
"90% of your userbase won't use 90% of the features on your application"
git has a ton of neat tools that help working with it,
but for most day-to-day activities, knowing how to commit code to a new branch and push to origin is more than enough
Damn, thanks for the --autosquash, time to stop prefixing all the "wip" commits with f!
git commit -a -m git push
Been coding since the 90s. I barely know any git terminal commands. It's only when I really mess up that I start begging Google StackOverflow GPT how to do the git stuff.
Git Kraken
What kind of unholy strategy uses all that?
git rebase is not that hard (until you are rebasing changes that contradict each other)Â
rebase with force push has many pitfalls. Dunno why people keep using it without just squashing stuff into master.
oh, you mean you guys don't delete the repo and push the code to a new one if there's ever a conflict?
Why make everything so complicated? The worst that I'll run into is a small merge conflict when pulling in changes and Ai have to do a git config pull.rebase false and manually check what I need to fix (this is why we have IDEs, people)
All these memes come down to one simple thing, really:
If it's simple, it's the first thing you learn
Then you learn about more complicated things to really take full control
Then you have to make your work accessible to others and not waste time, so you keep it as simple as when you first learned about it
Shout out to lazygit. It makes everything in the center much more user friendly!
Well if you can organize your code this well and code it in one go.
Didn't know there's a `replace` command.
I just use lazygit now. I forgot most git commands aside the main 3
So what does the guy on the left do when his branch is behind origin/main? What does he do when there is a merge conflict?
i used to use those console commands, but now i do everything in intellij idea
git commit -a -m âminor changes; git pushâ
Idk I just use the buttons in my IDE...
If Iâm spending time fucking around with git commands, Iâm not writing the code for the app Iâm supporting. Git interactions should be simple, pull/push, branch, merge, stash, commit. They should also be easy. Thatâs why I actual prefer a GUI like SourceTree. I know I can do more complex things on the command line, and when I need to I do, but most of the time I just want to see what Iâm working with and get back to writing code. But ultimately you do you.
I might be on the left, but I canât be convinced git cherry-pick is a real command.
I use GUI for Git
I had a manager once who insisted we put in extra effort to keep the git history clean. No reason. He just liked how it looked.
Pound sand, Cody. Your opinions were trash.
Or: [ Commit button ] click 1, [ Push button ] click 2.
git pull --rebase
git pull, git add, git commit -m, git push -u origin main. đŁď¸
Proud to be on the left side of the meme (except pull, rebase, commit message, force push)
My rule of thumb is - do whatever the fuck you want in your branch but when you merge to master, squash the commits
git reset --soft HEAD~n is the best way to squash n commits and I'll die on this hill.
Rebase from develop/master should be mandatory before doing a PR.
One commit features (using ammends or rebase -i) should be mandatory before doing a PR
ff-only merges, at least between master and develop should be mandatory
pulling should be banned (git fetch + rebase is miles better)
git add -A
I've been using git regularly for ten years now, I've still yet to ever hit the middle part of the curve.
Edit: with proper branching, though
Git ignore plz
which one am i?
And my dumb ass is alwasy using git add -A
at first there are mountains
then there are no mountains
then there are mountains again
posts like this generate comments that are great for training LLMs
Am I the only one who uses git add --all instead of git add . ? I am a junior dev
Nah you gotta rebase before you push.
git add * git commit -m "initial commit" git push --force
git commit -am gang rise up
Jujutsu + jjui ftw
Youâd expect the 3p1|< |-|4x0/> wouldâve automated things by now with is mad NodeJS skills he learnt at totallynotascam bootcamp
Been using git for 12 years and train other people on it.
Add/commit/push and pull/rebase/push are basically 99.9% of my git commands.
git commit -am "misc changes"
git push --force
git merge âabort
My hero
I'm the middle guy. What insights will turn me into the right side guy?
alias gang wya
I used to dance around git rebase, do weird shit, but after all it doesn't matter
add, commit, push.
often the better
ga, gcm, gpush
Cope newb
Ok ok, but worktrees are pretty dope
lg a c types message enter P Ctrl + c
There are more commands than add, commit & push?!?!? Whaaat? đ¤Ł
2025, do people still use git in the terminal?
I have delegated git to AI, so far I'm a very happy branch manager.
lazygit
op's history graph : https://imgur.com/a/tnRw9yF
haha wait no that's my team's :(
lol I even have a custom cmd in my bash rc
git_up_repo() {
git add .
git commit -m "$1"
git push
}
real
Just use lazygit
Skill issue...
Good luck working in a dev team without merging/rebase.
git good.
gitGud
Nah. Who else are we gonna git blame?
shaw
adidas
agave