GRV is a text-based Git repository viewer for the console, much like tig, but with a few extra features:
- Commits and refs can be filtered using a query language.
- Changes to the repository are captured by monitoring the filesystem allowing the UI to be updated automatically.
- Organised as tabs and splits. Custom tabs and splits can be created using any combination of views.
- Vi like keybindings by default, key bindings can be customised.
- Custom themes can be created.
I’ve trained more people on the subject of pull requests than I care to remember. But I’ve never came close to explaining the best practices as well as this Slack Engineering blog post does:
Basically, your reviewer is totally missing context, and it is your pull request’s job to give them that context. You have a few options:
- Give it a good title, so people know what they’re getting it into before they start.
- Use the description to tell your reviewer how you ended up with this solution. What did you try that didn’t work? Why is this the right solution?
- Be sure to link to any secondary material that can add more context — a link to the bug tracker or a Slack archive link can really help when describing the issue.
- Ask for specific feedback — if you are worried that the call to the `fooBarFrobber` could be avoided, let them know that so they can focus their effort.
- Finally, you should explain what’s going on for your reviewer. What did you fix? Did you have any trouble fixing the bug? What are some other ways you could’ve fixed this, and why did you decide to fix it this way?
Not every pull request needs every single one of those things, but the more information you give your reviewer, the better they will be able to review your code for you. Plus, if someone ever finds a problem in the future and tracks it down to this pull request, they might understand what you were trying to do when they make a follow-up fix.
Give your reviewer all the context they need to get up to speed with your bug so they can be an informed, useful code reviewer. It’s all about getting your reviewer onto the same page as yourself.
From the pre-commit homepage:
Git hook scripts are useful for identifying simple issues before submission to code review. We run our hooks on every commit to automatically point out issues in code such as missing semicolons, trailing whitespace, and debug statements. By pointing these issues out before code review, this allows a code reviewer to focus on the architecture of a change while not wasting time with trivial style nitpicks.
As we created more libraries and projects we recognized that sharing our pre-commit hooks across projects is painful. We copied and pasted unwieldy bash scripts from project to project and had to manually change the hooks to work for different project structures.
[…]
We built pre-commit to solve our hook issues. It is a multi-language package manager for pre-commit hooks. You specify a list of hooks you want and pre-commit manages the installation and execution of any hook written in any language before every commit. pre-commit is specifically designed to not require root access.
Have a look at the list of all supported hooks. There’s plenty!
I knew about git interactive staging for a while now, but I’ve never really used it. Â Most days I work on a single feature or bug fix at a time and can commit sequentially, one change after another. Â For an occasional mess, I found git interactive staging user interface too be too cumbersome.
The last couple of days at work were quite chaotic, with me jumping from one thing to another, and I decided to master that feature once and for all. Â Looking for a better tutorial, I came across this blog post, which covers the interactive staging, but also provides a much simpler approach – “git add –patch“.
It’ll take some practice to get it into my finger memory, but I think I’m settled now.