[eitland]

Edit: I now realize much (most?) of this already exist as part of the temporarily hidden Timeline feature in GitButler: https://docs.gitbutler.com/features/timeline

Now we just need automatic (possibly virtual[1]]) commits that get created whenever one does a refactoring or other wide, sweeping tool assisted changes and soon my skills as dev archeologist would either become less valuable (because everyone can see what happened[2]) or more valuable (because just like no one I know except me uses bisect no one will use this and it will simplify my job.)

This is (in my opinion) a great idea for a paid IntelliJ/VS Code/etc plug in but I realize I won't have time to do it.

[1]: "virtual commits" is just my marketing speak for adding extra metadata without polluting the branches we usually relate to. One possible way are branches named virtual-<uuid> and IDEs that support them will hide them by default. The plug in commits automatically on the hidden branch while keeping the normal user facing branch at its current commit, and everytime one commits the normal user facing branch the metadata branch is merged as a formality.

[2]: Maybe when I hover over a function I see its refactor history? Maybe I can click on a commit to expand it and see 4 virtual commits:

- edit + successful test,

- refactor + successful test,

- edit + test fail,

- edit + successful test

[robertlagrant]

I think GitLab does something like this behind the scenes when you tick the Merged results[0] box. Fake commit to run CI against.

[0] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/pipelines/merged_results_pipel...

[eitland]

Thanks!

[okl]

Don't know if that's what you're looking for but JetBrains tools have a Local History that saves all your local edits. It also notes whether unit tests where passing/failing at that point and let's you revert separate hunks.

[eitland]

I know. It is really useful!

The difference here is it would save it to the central repository so I know not only the steps I took but also the steps my colleagues took + K don't think local history track reason for change?

[avgcorrection]

Yeah this is too much marketing speak to be able to relate to concretely.