Oliver Davies
7a7dc297ca
Now the abs_to_rel module is enabled, links can be made relative so they work on the current environment.
100 lines
No EOL
5 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
5 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "78b682e0-a3be-4e49-990b-8fcc7083f6ca"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Solve one problem at a time"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-03-01T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2025\/03\/01\/one-problem",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>When using <code>git log<\/code> to look through the history of codebases, I often see large commits that combine several changes.<\/p>\n\n<p>These also lead to vague commit messages like \"Changes\", \"wip\" or \"Fixes\".<\/p>\n\n<p>These aren't helpful when reviewing the history and large commits are difficult to review and revert if there is a problem.<\/p>\n\n<p>Each commit should be focused on a single change, whether its adding part of a new feature, fixing a bug or refactoring.<\/p>\n\n<p>If it's a combination, they should be split into separate commits.<\/p>\n\n<p>Each commit should have its own well-written commit message that explains why the change was needed, any consequences or manual deployment steps, alternative approaches that were tried, issues encountered and any follow up actions.<\/p>\n\n<p>If you can't properly describe the changes made in a commit, the commit is too big.<\/p>\n\n<p>You should uncommit the changes and use <code>git add -p<\/code> to create a more focused commit.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is why <a href=\"/daily\/2024\/05\/11\/don-t-delete-my-commit-messages\">I don't squash commits<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n<p>If people have made an effort to create good commits with good commit messages, I don't want them to be lost when the commits are merged.<\/p>\n\n<p>I want to keep the history of the changes intact and as it originally was.<\/p>\n\n<p>I do sometimes need to <a href=\"/daily\/2025\/02\/11\/tidy\">tidy up my own commits<\/a>, though, before I push them for anyone else to see.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>When using <code>git log<\/code> to look through the history of codebases, I often see large commits that combine several changes.<\/p>\n\n<p>These also lead to vague commit messages like \"Changes\", \"wip\" or \"Fixes\".<\/p>\n\n<p>These aren't helpful when reviewing the history and large commits are difficult to review and revert if there is a problem.<\/p>\n\n<p>Each commit should be focused on a single change, whether its adding part of a new feature, fixing a bug or refactoring.<\/p>\n\n<p>If it's a combination, they should be split into separate commits.<\/p>\n\n<p>Each commit should have its own well-written commit message that explains why the change was needed, any consequences or manual deployment steps, alternative approaches that were tried, issues encountered and any follow up actions.<\/p>\n\n<p>If you can't properly describe the changes made in a commit, the commit is too big.<\/p>\n\n<p>You should uncommit the changes and use <code>git add -p<\/code> to create a more focused commit.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is why <a href=\"/daily\/2024\/05\/11\/don-t-delete-my-commit-messages\">I don't squash commits<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n<p>If people have made an effort to create good commits with good commit messages, I don't want them to be lost when the commits are merged.<\/p>\n\n<p>I want to keep the history of the changes intact and as it originally was.<\/p>\n\n<p>I do sometimes need to <a href=\"/daily\/2025\/02\/11\/tidy\">tidy up my own commits<\/a>, though, before I push them for anyone else to see.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "1970-01-01T00:33:45+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "4fba08380c1f4dbf231499fd7ddea935",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |