Ask HN: Do you ever truly use your revision history?
Frequently. Just this evening I was looking in the HN repository for the last version of the code that pg wrote, to remind myself how he used to do something.One of my favorite tricks is to make a file out of all the changes in the history:  git log -p > bigass

and then grep through the file (edit: which I like to do in Emacs—hence the file) to see every appearance of some construct. There's a lot of knowledge in there. It's particularly useful when you remember that you did something, but forget how you did it.In fact, I use git proactively this way, to store things in the version history that I might want to remember later. For example, if I write exploratory code to test out a feature or throwaway code to do some analysis—anything I might want to use again, but don't want to commit to the codebase—I'll add it as a commit and then immediately revert the commit (i.e. make a new commit that deletes what I just added). The codebase remains unchanged, but what I just did is now there forever for future me to recover.Such an approach only works if your system is small, but I like to work on small systems and prevent them from becoming large systems. There's a beneficial feedback loop here: as you get comfortable working with history, it gives you more confidence to delete things, helping to keep the system small.I've also found this technique useful for solving the chronic problem with documentation: that it inevitably fails to get updated. When I write something about the code, I commit it and, as above, immediately revert the commit. Now it's permanently glued to the state of the code when I wrote it. When I read it in the future, I can do so alongside a diff of the code from then to now. This makes it easy to see what has changed in the meantime, in which case I can update the document and commit/revert it again.