[zapt02]

Not sure if this morally ok, because I assume it uses git timestamps to trick the activity graph.

[Argorak]

Let's put it another way: it shows very nicely that the activity graph is a very nice plaything, but not to be trusted in any way.

[icebraining]

Why would it be morally not ok to trick the activity graph and/or create fake git timestamps?

[infinity0]

github activity discounts commits to non-master branches anyway, which is pretty immoral from my point of view.

[rfergie]

Immoral seems to be a bit of a strong word here. But then I don't use git/github much.

Can you explain?

[infinity0]

The parent post mentioned "moral", I was just making the point not to take online infographics too seriously - there are inaccuracies in both directions.

[shocks]

It'll display correctly once you merge your non-master branches down.

[infinity0]

doesn't seem to be working for me.

[lparry]

complete stab in the dark here, but perhaps however you're getting your work onto master is rewriting timestamps (NFI if the graph goes off authored or commited dates).

Maybe try 'git checkout master && git merge --no-ff feature-branch' and see if that helps

[lcedp]

Hacking things is not morally ok?

[manojlds]

Just a "script kiddie" in this case if you use it.