it's recognition from the individual's perspective. think love languages. one person's recognition might be salary because they make $35,000/yr and another's isn't financial. they are doing this because retirement is boring.
in practice it is often a combination with different ratios.
as an employee it is advantageous to think about what makes you feel recognized and work with your manager on it. if it's monetary and they're stingy then your values won't align and you will be frustrated.
> Dropbox is also harvesting your data for various purposes. I hope your code isn't valuable, because it could be leaked or stolen by employees of Dropbox.
> although I suppose it should let you know whether you could hope to change anything by changing human activity
This is the discussion. As I understand "climate change deniers" aren't denying things like the increase global temperatures or the rising of sea level. The science is clear that these are happening. They are denying that human behavior changed or changes anything. I agree it should be a moot point whether humans caused it or not as there are other reasons to make changes but being inconvenienced is hard and spending money isn't profitable. It's a lot easier to bike shed.
I've found worktrees[1] are a great tool for this use case.
"oh. i should fix this, but it doesn't have anything to do with what i'm currently solving." cd ../worktree-checkout, make a branch, do the fix, push, open a pr. then cd ../original-checkout and continue on. rebasing the fix into my wip when the PR is merged (or cherry-pick if you're confident) as needed.
I think the preference to squash and rebase instead of merge is because of Github, honestly. It flattens the history out when the history is not flat at all.
If Github's UI showed branches diverging, commits being made to that branch, then the merge back to trunk like gitk does then devs could visually see why it's valuable.
If you find commit messages useless, it's because you're making them useless.
It seems like the workflow where you get 20 "stuff" commits in a PR is to: git commit -am "stuff", test it, see that it doesn't work, make another change, hit up then enter on the shell window, test it, and so on.
If this is how you prefer to develop then I think testing first and squashing along the way might be better:
- small change: test, didn't work, git reset --hard
- another attempt: test, worked, git add, git add <files>, git commit --amend (new meaningful note)
If the steps you're taking to get to the end are meaningful or significant (maybe for a bisect in the future) then just commit with a meaningful message along the way.
More generally, I think it's more common create commit messages for "me", the writer, and not for the reader. Try instead writing commit messages (comments, documentation..) for an audience who doesn't have the context you have. For example: Nathan in 7 (or 2) years time who is tracking down the reason for a change you made which he suspects is the cause of a bug he's trying to fix.
it's recognition from the individual's perspective. think love languages. one person's recognition might be salary because they make $35,000/yr and another's isn't financial. they are doing this because retirement is boring.
in practice it is often a combination with different ratios.
as an employee it is advantageous to think about what makes you feel recognized and work with your manager on it. if it's monetary and they're stingy then your values won't align and you will be frustrated.