I think I'm toast. I can't tell either way. I mean, now that you've said it, I think I can see it, but no way in hell would I have noticed on my own.
I was initially just gonna comment about how it's unsafe to ride with a dog that isn't secured with a harness.
Maybe there should be a mechanism for merging communities across instances.
If two communities set out with the same goal in a community and one of them didn't get very popular, wouldn't it be nice if they could come to an agreement to merge the communities and share the hosting burden?
I just noticed the poster... What the hell is up with that raised leg? Is it pervert bait?
Looks tasty, but very high in calories. Not sure healthy is the right word.
I wish it were true, but no, not really.
Sometimes they're desaturated.
Sometimes they're 3:4.
Sometimes they're straight-up black and white.
Changing something about the appearance of of the image is done often. But I don't think blurry would do unless it's a really short flashback. It would either look like a mistake (camera not in focus for instance), not be intense enough to be apparent on smaller or lower resolution TVs, or be distracting and annoying to the viewer (say, some sort of foveated motion blur).
Is that what interactive rebase tools use?
I don't do CLI git
Huh. Never thought of it that way. I was never bothered by a long commit history at all. Search and filter tools in the git client always get me where I want.
The one issue I have is when there are way too many extant branches and the graph takes up happy half my screen.
But that's more of a Fork issue than it is a fundamental one. The Fork dev could conceivably find a solution for that.
Either way, I guess I see what you mean. I'm just not that strict about commits. Commits just for the linter aren't a thing since we have a pre-commit hook for that, and typo-fixing commits... Well, they happen, but they're typically not numerous enough that I'd find them to be any sort of issue.
As for whether I'd really want to revert a particular change -- while I work, yes. Afterwards, I see what you mean; i could probably squash 50 commits into 15 or something. But when I think about the time investment of reviewing every commit and thinking about how they ought to be grouped together before making my merge request... I have a lot of trouble convincing myself it's a good time investment.
Maybe I'd think otherwise if we had a huge team. We have maybe 10 devs on this project at any given time.
That's a good explanation of what it's supposed to do. That was how I understood it as well.
But anytime I've tried it, I've ended up with conflicts where there shouldn't be (like, I already solved that conflict when I merged earlier) and/or completely undesirable results in the end (for instance, some of my changes are just NOT in the result).
So I just gave up on the whole feature. Simpler to just merge the source branch into mine.
Hmm, I'm less afraid of force push. It does what it says on the tin. If I pushed a fuck-uo to remote and a reset is the simplest way out, you can bet I'm force-pushing that reset.
Why would you want to squash? Feels weird to willingly give up history granularity...
Very post-apocalyptic picture. Excellent.