technom

Only users who don't know rebasing and the advantages of a crafted history make statements like this. There are several projects that depend on clean commit history. You need it for conventional commit tools (like commitzen), pre-commit hook tools, git blame, git bisect, etc.

You can have both. I'll get to that later. But first, let me explain why edited history is useful.

Unedited histories are very chaotic and often contains errors, commits with partial features, abandoned code, reverted code, out-of-sequence code, etc. These are useful in preserving the actual progress of your own thought. But such histories are a nightmare to review. Commits should be complete (a single commit contains a full feature) and in proper order. If you're a reviewer, you also wouldn't want to waste time reviewing someone else's mistakes, experiments, reverted code, etc. Self-complete commits also have another advantage - users can choose to omit an entire feature by omitting a commit.

Now the part about having both - the unedited and carefully crafted history. Rebasing doesn't erase the original branch. You can preserve it by creating a new branch. Or, you can recover it from reflog. I use it to preserve the original development history. Then I submit the edited/crafted history/branch upstream.

I agree that merge is the easier strategy with amateurs. By amateurs I mean those who cannot be bothered to learn about rebase. But what you really lose there is a nice commit history. It's good to have, even if your primary strategy is merging. And people tend to create horrendous commit histories when they don't know how to edit them.

Because their name is Elon Musk.

Leap years are not as bad as timezones, if you think about it. Timezones try to imperfectly solve a local problem - how to match your clock with the position of the sun. Leap years try to reasonably solve a global problem - how to keep your calendar aligned with the seasons.

I wonder if these trillion dollar companies offer support contracts for astroturfing on social media on their behalf. I can't think of any other way so many people are supporting their sociopathic attitude.

The devs don't take an issue with the ticket being filed. They're irritated by one particular reply which sounds like "My million dollar product depends on this bug fix. Please do that for me". MS isn't offering a solution. They're asking for one.

To be fair MS offers an amount for the fix. Most companies just bully the devs instead. However, I don't think it's quite fair (though legal) to offer one time payments for a core library that they use.

Those same companies tell you that their products that you paid for don't belong to you. You are just buying a license to use them. Sadly, this asinine concept is spreading even to hardware markets.

I think it's fair to ask them to take their own bitter pill. They should also invest without owning.

That was only a very rough version. His original plan was to use it as a backend for other VCS. Torvalds handed over the maintainership of the project to Junio Hamano after about 4 months. Much of what we know today as git are contributions from him and others.

None of this is to say that Torvalds didn't invent it. He invented the content addressed object storage format. But it's important to understand the actual history of git's evolution.

The story behind git is very dramatic. You should read it.

The hack is still not fully understood and is being analyzed. It doesn't help that Github suspended everything, including the original maintainer's account (who is believed to be a victim of social engineering).

Anyway, you will eventually see a post mortem. I'm willing to bet that it's going to be as phenomenal as the hack itself. The case and its investigation is going to be a classic case study for all security researchers and security-minded users. Anyway, I doubt that the attackers will ever be found. Jia Tan, Jigar Kumar and others are going to remain as ghosts like Satoshi Nakamoto.

They really ought to have version masking like in Gentoo portage.