June 19th, 2015
(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at: email@example.com
The obsession of git users with rewriting history has always puzzled me. I like that the feature exists, because it is very occasionally useful, but it’s one of those things you should almost never use.
The whole point of history is to have a record of what happened. If you’re going around and changing it, then you no longer have a record of what happened, but a record of what you kind of wish had actually happened.
How are you going to find out when a bug was introduced, or see the context in which a particular bit of code was written, when you may have erased what actually happened and replaced it with a whitewashed version? What is the point of having commits in your repository which represent a state that the code was never actually in?
It always feels to me like people just being image-conscious. Some programmers really want to come across as careful, conscientious, thoughtful programmers, but can’t actually accomplish it, so instead they do the usual mess, try to clean it up, then go back and make it look like the code was always clean. It doesn’t actually help anything, it just makes them look better. The stuff about nonlinear history being harder to read is just rationalization.