HN Explorer

19 comments

[ 26.5 ms ] story [ 811 ms ] thread
zapt02
Not sure if this morally ok, because I assume it uses git timestamps to trick the activity graph.
icebraining
Why would it be morally not ok to trick the activity graph and/or create fake git timestamps?
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.
lcedp
Hacking things is not morally ok?
manojlds
Just a "script kiddie" in this case if you use it.
infinity0
github activity discounts commits to non-master branches anyway, which is pretty immoral from my point of view.
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

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.
mkohlmyr
Alternatively, you could just.. You know.. Actually commit enough work to impress people...
icebraining
Who says the point is impressing people?
kmfrk
... or ... both. :)
pearjuice
Later: click here to flag this activity graph as fake