---
title: Git Cherry Picking & Time-Travel
permalink: /futureproof/git-cherry-picking/
description: I've been using Git in a very linear way for years, but today I finally took the plunge and learned how to use branching and cherry-picking. It was a bit of a mind-bending experience, but I'm glad I did it. Now I can easily hop between different timelines and cherry-pick the changes I want, without having to worry about introducing bugs. I'm also excited to start using branches as a way to explore older commits and experiment with new features. This is a major step forward in my Git journey, and I can't wait to see what I can do with my new superpowers!
meta_description: Master advanced Git techniques for cherry picking and time travel to fix bugs and optimize branch management in your development workflow.
meta_keywords: git cherry picking, git time travel, git branching, git rebase, git reset, version control, bug patching, commit cherry-picking, git workflow, git reflog, branch management
layout: post
sort_order: 1
---

{% raw %}


## Introduction

Have you ever felt like you were stuck in a rut with your Git workflow? Like you were limited to a single, linear timeline, unable to easily explore different versions of your code or experiment with new features without the risk of introducing bugs? That's how I felt for years, until I finally took the plunge and learned how to use branching and cherry-picking.

### What You'll Learn

In this article, I'll share my journey of discovering the power of Git's non-linear capabilities. I'll explain how I learned to "hop" between different timelines, cherry-pick the changes I want, and even use branches as a way to explore older commits and experiment with new features.

### Who This is For

Whether you're a Git newbie or a seasoned pro, I hope this article will inspire you to take your Git skills to the next level. So come along with me on this adventure, and let's unlock the full potential of Git together!

---

## Jumping Into Today's Work

> Fair warning to the new reader of this blog / daily tech journal. You don't
> have to read or understand the big blocks of code you're about to encounter.
> This is often what I do to season LLM sessions for the day. 

The LLMs have got these whopping huge context windows, so I feed them ***full
context*** (this whole article as it evolves). Today, I start out with it doing
an analysis of a block of code I worked on recently, and so the whole block of
code appears here. I know this will turn a lot of readers away, but hey look
around. See any advertising? Nope! This writing is for myself and the LLMs,
primarily, but you are welcome to follow along!

I've got to live with these decisions forever, or at least for a good long time.
So let's get them right. Here's my Pipulate class starting point:

```python
class Pipulate:
    """
    Pipulate manages a pipeline using a JSON blob with keys like "step_01", "step_02", etc.
    No 'steps' or 'current_step' keys exist. The presence of step keys determines progress.

    Data Structure Example:
    {
        "step_01": {"name": "John"},
        "step_02": {"color": "blue"},
        "created": "2024-12-08T12:34:56", 
        "updated": "2024-12-08T12:35:45"
    }

    The highest step number that exists in the JSON is considered the last completed step.
    The next step is always one more than the highest completed step.
    """

    def __init__(self, table):
        self.table = table

    def _get_state(self, url: str) -> dict:
        record = self.table[url]
        state = json.loads(record.data)
        return state

    def _save_state(self, url: str, state: dict):
        now = datetime.now().isoformat()
        state["updated"] = now
        self.table.update({
            "url": url,
            "data": json.dumps(state),
            "updated": state["updated"]
        })

    def initialize_if_missing(self, url: str, initial_step_data: dict = None) -> dict:
        """Initialize state for url if it doesn't exist"""
        try:
            return self._get_state(url)
        except NotFoundError:
            now = datetime.now().isoformat()
            state = {
                "created": now,
                "updated": now
            }
            if initial_step_data:
                # Extract endpoint from initial data if present
                endpoint = None
                if "endpoint" in initial_step_data:
                    endpoint = initial_step_data.pop("endpoint").strip('/')
                state.update(initial_step_data)

            self.table.insert({
                "url": url,
                "endpoint": endpoint,  # New column
                "data": json.dumps(state),
                "created": now,
                "updated": now
            })
            return state

    def get_state(self, url: str) -> dict:
        """Get current state for url"""
        try:
            return self._get_state(url)
        except NotFoundError:
            return {}

    def set_step_data(self, url: str, step_name: str, data: dict):
        """Set data for a specific step"""
        state = self.get_state(url)
        state[step_name] = data
        self._save_state(url, state)

    @pipeline_operation
    def get_step_data(self, url: str, step_name: str, default=None) -> dict:
        """Get data for a specific step"""
        state = self.get_state(url)
        return state.get(step_name, default or {})

    def generate_step_placeholders(self, steps, prefix, start_from=0):
        """Generate step placeholder divs for any workflow.

        Args:
            steps: List of (key, step_id, label) tuples defining the workflow
            prefix: URL prefix for the workflow (e.g., "/poetx")
            start_from: Index of step to trigger on load (default 0)

        Returns:
            List of Div elements with appropriate HTMX attributes
        """
        return [
            Div(
                id=step_id,
                hx_get=f"{prefix}/{step_id}",
                hx_trigger="load" if i == start_from else None
            )
            for i, (_, step_id, _) in enumerate(steps)
        ]

    def clear_steps_from(self, url: str, target_step: str, steps):
        """Clear state from target step onwards.

        Args:
            url: Workflow identifier
            target_step: Step ID to start clearing from
            steps: List of workflow steps
        Returns:
            Updated state dict
        """
        state = self.get_state(url)
        step_indices = {step_id: i for i, (_, step_id, _) in enumerate(steps)}
        target_idx = step_indices[target_step]

        for _, step_id, _ in steps[target_idx:]:
            state.pop(step_id, None)

        self._save_state(url, state)
        return state


    def get_step_summary(self, url: str, current_step: str, steps) -> tuple[dict, list]:
        """Get state and summary up to current step.

        Args:
            url: Workflow identifier
            current_step: Current step being processed
            steps: List of workflow steps

        Returns:
            (state_dict, summary_lines) where:
            - state_dict: {key: value} of completed steps
            - summary_lines: List of formatted "Label: value" strings
        """
        # Get state up to current step
        state = {}
        current_step_found = False
        for key, step_id, label in steps:
            if current_step_found:
                break
            if step_id == current_step:
                current_step_found = True
            step_data = self.get_step_data(url, step_id, {})
            if key in step_data:
                state[key] = step_data[key]

        # Build summary lines
        summary_lines = []
        for key, step_id, label in steps:
            if step_id == current_step:
                break
            if key in state:
                summary_lines.append(f"- {label}: {state[key]}")

        return state, summary_lines

    def revert_control(
        self,
        step_id: str,
        prefix: str,
        url: str = None,
        message: str = None,
        final_step: str = None,
        target_id: str = "tenflow-container",
        label: str = None,
        style: str = None
    ):
        """
        Return a revert control with optional styling and finalization check.
        
        Args:
            step_id: e.g. "step_03"
            prefix: e.g. "/tenflow"
            url: Optional pipeline URL to check finalization
            message: Optional message to show in card
            final_step: Optional step that marks finalization
            target_id: Container ID to replace
            label: Custom button label
            style: Custom button style
        """
        # Early return if finalized
        if url and final_step and self.is_finalized(url, final_step):
            return None

        # Default styling if not provided
        default_style = (
            "background-color: var(--pico-del-color);"
            "display: inline-block;"
            "padding: 0.25rem 0.5rem;"
            "border: 3px solid #f88;"
            "border-radius: 4px;"
            "font-size: 0.85rem;"
            "cursor: pointer;"
        )

        # Create basic revert form
        form = Form(
            Input(type="hidden", name="step", value=step_id),
            Button(
                label or f"\u00A0{format_step_name(step_id)}", 
                type="submit", 
                style=style or default_style
            ),
            hx_post=f"{prefix}/jump_to_step",
            hx_target=f"#{target_id}",
            hx_swap="outerHTML"
        )

        # Return simple form if no message
        if not message:
            return form

        # Return styled card with message if provided
        return Card(
            Div(message, style="flex: 1;"),
            Div(form, style="flex: 0;"),
            style="display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: space-between;"
        )

    def wrap_with_inline_button(
        self,
        input_element: Input,
        button_label: str = "Next",
        button_class: str = "primary"
    ) -> Div:
        """Wrap any input element with an inline button in a flex container."""
        return Div(
            input_element,
            Button(
                button_label,
                type="submit",
                cls=button_class,
                style=(
                    "display: inline-block;"
                    "cursor: pointer;"
                    "width: auto !important;"  # Override PicoCSS width: 100%
                    "white-space: nowrap;"
                )
            ),
            style="display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 0.5rem;"
        )

    def is_finalized(self, url: str, final_step: str) -> bool:
        """
        Return True if the pipeline's final_step data has "finalized" in it.
        
        Args:
            url: Pipeline identifier
            final_step: Step that marks finalization (e.g. "step_05")
        """
        step_data = self.get_step_data(url, final_step, {})
        return "finalized" in step_data

    async def explain(self, caller, current_step, message=None):
        """
        Minimal LLM commentary, adapted from Poetflow's 'explain'.
        If llm_enabled=True, we create a background task with chatq().
        
        Args:
            caller: The calling object (e.g. BridgeFlow instance) containing llm_enabled, 
                   STEPS, and pipeline_id via db.get()
            current_step: Current step ID (e.g. "step_01") 
            message: Optional message to use instead of generating summary
        """
        if not caller.llm_enabled:
            return

        pipeline_id = db.get("pipeline_id", "unknown")

        # Optionally gather step summary lines from pipulate
        _, summary_lines = self.get_step_summary(pipeline_id, current_step, caller.STEPS)

        prompt = ""
        if not message:
            summary = ""
            if summary_lines:
                summary = "So far:\n" + "\n".join(summary_lines) + "\n\n"
            prompt = (
                f"Briefly summarize the user's progress at '{current_step}'.\n\n"
                f"{summary}"
            )
        else:
            prompt = message

        asyncio.create_task(chatq(prompt, role="system"))
```

---

## First We Look For Redundancies

> I've got a lot of work from yesterday's session do do ***ADDING*** to
> Pipulate, but before we make it bigger, I think I ought to make it
> smaller— and more consistent abiding by common Python conventions.

And I ask Claude if there are any redundancies in this?

**Claude**: Yes, there are several opportunities for improvement in the `Pipulate` class:

1. State Management Redundancy:

````python
    def get_state(self, url: str) -> dict:
        """Get current state for url"""
        try:
            return self._get_state(url)
        except NotFoundError:
            return {}

    def _get_state(self, url: str) -> dict:
        record = self.table[url]
        state = json.loads(record.data)
        return state
````

We could combine these into one method since `get_state` is just a wrapper with error handling.

{:start="2"}
2. Timestamp Handling:

````python
    def initialize_if_missing(self, url: str, initial_step_data: dict = None) -> dict:
        # ... 
        now = datetime.now().isoformat()
        state = {
            "created": now,
            "updated": now
        }
        # ...

    def _save_state(self, url: str, state: dict):
        now = datetime.now().isoformat()
        state["updated"] = now
        # ...
````

We could create a `_get_timestamp()` helper method.

{:start="3"}
3. Card/Form Generation:
````python
    def revert_control(self, ...):
        # Default styling if not provided
        default_style = (
            "background-color: var(--pico-del-color);"
            "display: inline-block;"
            "padding: 0.25rem 0.5rem;"
            "border: 3px solid #f88;"
            "border-radius: 4px;"
            "font-size: 0.85rem;"
            "cursor: pointer;"
        )
````
The default styles could be class constants.

Here's how we could refactor it:

````python
class Pipulate:
    # Class constants
    DEFAULT_BUTTON_STYLE = (
        "background-color: var(--pico-del-color);"
        "display: inline-block;"
        "padding: 0.25rem 0.5rem;"
        "border: 3px solid #f88;"
        "border-radius: 4px;"
        "font-size: 0.85rem;"
        "cursor: pointer;"
    )

    def __init__(self, table):
        self.table = table

    def _get_timestamp(self) -> str:
        """Get current timestamp in ISO format"""
        return datetime.now().isoformat()

    def get_state(self, url: str) -> dict:
        """Get current state for url with error handling"""
        try:
            record = self.table[url]
            return json.loads(record.data)
        except NotFoundError:
            return {}

    def _save_state(self, url: str, state: dict):
        """Save state with updated timestamp"""
        state["updated"] = self._get_timestamp()
        self.table.update({
            "url": url,
            "data": json.dumps(state),
            "updated": state["updated"]
        })

    def initialize_if_missing(self, url: str, initial_step_data: dict = None) -> dict:
        """Initialize state for url if it doesn't exist"""
        try:
            return self.get_state(url)
        except NotFoundError:
            now = self._get_timestamp()
            state = {
                "created": now,
                "updated": now
            }
            if initial_step_data:
                endpoint = initial_step_data.pop("endpoint", "").strip('/') if "endpoint" in initial_step_data else None
                state.update(initial_step_data)

            self.table.insert({
                "url": url,
                "endpoint": endpoint,
                "data": json.dumps(state),
                "created": now,
                "updated": now
            })
            return state
````

This refactoring:
1. Eliminates the redundant `_get_state` method
2. Centralizes timestamp generation
3. Moves styling constants to class level
4. Simplifies endpoint extraction
5. Makes the code more DRY overall

Would you like me to continue with more refactoring suggestions?

---

## Starting To Clean The Pipes

> If it's not broken, don't fix it! Yet here I go doing it anyway, because this
> code is going to propegate alot, given how I deliberately don't derive
> workflows from base classes. So there's some artistry here that just needs to
> be done.

**Me**: Okay, I combined them, got rid of _get_state and updated references to it to get_state. What did the underscore mean?

```python
    def get_state(self, url: str) -> dict:
        """Get current state for url"""
        try:
            record = self.table[url]
            state = json.loads(record.data)
            return state
        except NotFoundError:
            return {}
```

**Claude**: The underscore prefix in Python (e.g., `_get_state`) is a naming convention that indicates the method is intended for internal use only (private-by-convention). While Python doesn't have true private methods like some other languages, the underscore prefix tells other developers "this is an implementation detail, please don't call this directly from outside the class."

So in the original code:
- `_get_state()` was meant to be the internal implementation
- `get_state()` was the public interface that added error handling

By combining them into a single `get_state()` method (without the underscore), we're making it clear that this is a public method that other code can safely use. This is better because:
1. The error handling is now part of the core functionality
2. There's only one way to get state
3. The API is simpler and clearer

It's a good change! The underscore was suggesting a separation that wasn't really necessary in this case.

**Me**: Okay, so I replaced all occurrences of `_save_state` with `save_state` based on the same principle, since `_save_state` was used all throughout the workflows.

**Claude**: Yes, that's a good decision! Since `save_state` is being used throughout the workflows, it's effectively part of the public API of the `Pipulate` class, so removing the underscore makes its status clearer.

The underscore prefix would make sense if the method was only used internally by other methods within the `Pipulate` class. But since it's a core operation that other classes need to use, making it explicitly public by removing the underscore better reflects its actual role in the codebase.

This kind of refactoring helps make the API more honest - the naming now matches how the method is actually being used. It's a good example of making the code's intent clearer through naming conventions!

Would you like to look for other methods that might benefit from the same kind of clarification?

---

## Git Adventures Begin

Okay, I broke something. This is going to be quite an adventure. I really only
use git as a sort of personal infinite undo. And even in that regard, I use it
as a linear forward and backward timeline, sort of like scrubbing forward and
backwards in video editing. This is done with:

    git reset --hard HEAD

Where it says HEAD, you can replace it with any hash you find when you `git
log`, and so you have the ideal time machine. The hash I want to go to is
867b7b9d95dab4d189a472e6006f12252e9da1b467b7b9d95dab4d189a472e6006f12252e9da1b4
where I know the error did not exist.

### The Time Travel Dilemma

The problem is that I've done a number of "innovations" since then, some of
which I want to keep and one of which introduced a bug. Now If I simply:

    git reset --hard 867b7b9d95dab4d189a472e6006f12252e9da1b467b7b9d95dab4d189a472e6006f12252e9da1b4

...then I could eliminate the but instantly because undo. However, I loose all
those other improvements, and if I forced a commit with:

    git commit -am "Bug gone"
    git push --force

Then I have committed a new timeline. I have traveled backwards in time in the
repository, undid my recent actions and start anew from that point in history.
And this is generally good. This is my way of working. This does not break the
brain with all the same multi-thread coordination of concurrent programming,
which I also don't like very much. I am a linear non-linear thinker. While my
mind might jump around like crazy and I document this and that all over the
place in a tech journal like this, my coding implementation path is singluar...

### Stepping Out of the Comfort Zone

Until right now. It's time to leave my comfort zone and to explore the realm of
git branches, checkouts and cherry picking. The mere concept of which terrifies
me, but I'm going to do it. And I'm going to enlist the help of... hmmm... o1
Pro or Claude 3.5 Sonnet? This is the path very much more traveled, and I don't
need the o1 Pro big thinker idea-man here. In fact, that could work against me
in this case. Clause has full context of my code being the default in Cursor.

So, I'll just feed it this whole article so far today. Claude?

---

## Branching Out And Cherry Picking With Claude

> It's time to leave my comfort zone, and I didn't even have to articulate the
> situation to Claude because I've been articulating it to myself through my
> daily tech journal. This prompting method has been highly effective with o1
> Pro, but here I apply it with Claude.

**Claude**: I understand you want to preserve recent improvements while removing a bug, and you're ready to explore git branching instead of your usual linear time-travel approach. Here's what I suggest:

1. First, create a branch at your current state to preserve all your work:

```bash
git branch save-improvements
```

{:start="2"}
2. Then reset to the working commit:

```bash
git reset --hard 867b7b9
```

{:start="3"}
3. Create a new branch from this working state:

```bash
git checkout -b fix-bug
```

{:start="4"}
4. Now you can cherry-pick the good changes from your `save-improvements` branch. To see what commits you want:

```bash
git log save-improvements
```

{:start="5"}
5. Cherry-pick the good commits one at a time:

```bash
git cherry-pick <commit-hash>
```

If you run into conflicts during cherry-picking, you can:
- Resolve them manually
- Use `git cherry-pick --abort` to start over
- Use `git cherry-pick --skip` to skip a problematic commit

This way, you can rebuild your timeline with just the good changes, leaving out the problematic one. Once you're happy with the result, you can merge back to main and push.

Would you like me to help you through this process? We can start by identifying which commits you want to keep.

---

## Digesting `git` Cherry-Picking

> I want to just push back on Claude immediately, asserting how that makes no
> sense and is incomprehensible to boot. But I decide to brute-force my way
> through the process, drawing the [mermaid gitgraph
> diagrams](https://mermaid.js.org/syntax/gitgraph.html) in my head.

**Me**: This is where my mind blows up, Claude. I've done all this:

```bash
[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git pull
Already up to date.

[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git reset --hard HEAD
HEAD is now at 4ca8aee Created a get_timestamp helper function

[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git reset --hard 867b7b9
HEAD is now at 867b7b9 Adjusted key look

[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git checkout -b fix-bug
Switched to a new branch 'fix-bug'
```

...but now your instructions say this:

4. Now you can cherry-pick the good changes from your `save-improvements` branch. To see what commits you want:
```bash
git log save-improvements
```

5. Cherry-pick the good commits one at a time:
```bash
git cherry-pick <commit-hash>
```

If you run into conflicts during cherry-picking, you can:
- Resolve them manually
- Use `git cherry-pick --abort` to start over
- Use `git cherry-pick --skip` to skip a problematic commit

This way, you can rebuild your timeline with just the good changes, leaving out the problematic one. Once you're happy with the result, you can merge back to main and push.

---

## Understanding Git Branch Management

...but I just don't get it! That is totally unclear to me. The mental model is
just not in my head. Let me try:

I do a `git pull` and `git reset --hard HEAD` which ensures I'm at the very
newest that I've ever commit and push. And things are linear.

I create a branch named `save-improvements`, but functionally things are still
linear as there's not any changes in that branch. It's a bud more than a branch.

However, the moment I do `git reset --hard 867b7b9`, things are no longer
linear. In a mermaid diagram, there'd be a branching line. But it's two lines
with identical histories.

### The Mental Model Breakdown

Okay, so here's where the mental model breaks down and I'm going to try to talk
it out loud to get the answer for myself, then run it by you.

Now I check out a 3rd time `git checkout -b fix-bug` from as you say, the
working state. We have 3 lines if it were a mermaid diagram (I really should
insert those). All 3 lines have shared histories, but two of the lines, `main`
and `save-improvements` have the full history, bug and all. While the third
branch, was checked out after the `git reset --hard <8675309>` and so is behind
in the horse race.

### The Subtlety of Branching

**WHILE I'M IN** the bug-fix branch, I can still `git log` a different branch
with `git log save-improvements`. This is a subtle and nuanced point that
normally eludes me. I'm in the 3rd horse's track who fell behind, but I'm
looking ahead in one of the two other currently identical neck-and-neck horses
out in the lead.

And now you say: Cherry-pick the good commits one at a time with commands like
`git cherry-pick <commit-hash>`

And I say whuuuuut? 

### The Patching Paradox

So this is all that merge stuff that I generally avoid in git due to my trying
to stick to linearity for easier mental models. But there's another world, a
shadowy place where linear histories are decomposed into ***patches*** that can
be plucked out of a timeline and selectively ***applied*** to other timelines
without regard to causality.

### The Time-Travel Dilemma

And I hate time-travel stories. I avoid them like the plague, especially in Star
Trek. I mean like H.G. Wells with the Morlocks and Eloi is a must, but only
because of historical context and the awesome metaphors it provides for those
becoming too dependent on AI like me here, and the Luddites who stay on the
surface. But that's for another article. And I do have a time-travel prompt
technique I use here a lot, but if you look at it, you'll see it's purely linear
video-scrubbing style—not this multiverse crap.

Suffice to say, I need to embrace a kooky time-travel scenario of the sort I
instinctively deplore in order to get the benefit of cross-branch
cherry-picking, which is what we're doing.

My question is why 3 branches: main, save-improvements and fix-bug.

fix-bug is immediately prior to the bug having set in. So conceptually we're
doing a Mario-style platform game jump over a particular commit.

We are in the fix-bug branch as we cherry-pick.

### The Misunderstanding

We cherry-pick from the commit hashes found in save-improvements. But
save-improvements is identical to main, since it was branched from main at the
most recent branch HEAD (I believe the term is trunk). So this whole scenario is
made more complex for me by increasing the surface are of the mental model by a
third. This whole thing it seems could be done with just 2 timelines: the main
and a rolled back one that cherry-picks off main.

What am I missing?

---

## The Simplification

**Claude**: Ah, you're absolutely right! I apologize for overcomplicating it. You don't need the `save-improvements` branch at all - it's redundant since, as you noted, it would be identical to `main`. 

Here's the simpler mental model with just two timelines:

```mermaid
gitGraph
    commit id: "867b7b9 (working state)"
    commit id: "bug introduced"
    commit id: "improvement 1"
    commit id: "improvement 2"
    branch fix-bug
    checkout fix-bug
    reset id: "867b7b9"
```

<div class="mermaid">
gitGraph
    commit id: "8675309 (working)"
    commit id: "bug introduced"
    commit id: "improvement 1"
    commit id: "improvement 2"
    branch fix-bug
    checkout fix-bug
    checkout main
</div>

You're now on `fix-bug` branch, which is at the working state (867b7b9). From here, you can look at `main`'s history and cherry-pick the good commits:

```bash
git log main  # See the improvements that came after 867b7b9
git cherry-pick <hash-of-improvement-1>
git cherry-pick <hash-of-improvement-2>
```

This is like saying "I want these specific changes, but not the bug that came between them."

Once you've cherry-picked the good stuff onto `fix-bug`, you can:
```bash
git checkout main
git reset --hard fix-bug  # Make main match your fixed branch
git push --force  # Rewrite history on remote
```

You're right - the third branch was unnecessary complexity. It's just:
1. Main timeline (with bug)
2. Rolled-back timeline that cherry-picks the good parts

Would you like to proceed with this simpler approach?

---

## Paradox Patching

**Me**: No, I've already gone this route and I'm full of decision fatigue from
being out of my comfort zone and being hit with 1/3 more complexity than I
needed for figuring out something new. Just make a correction statement and help
me apply a patch, such as it were. Maybe I need to delete a branch, and then I
do the git logging against main from here forward?

**Claude***: You're right - let's simplify and get back on track. Here's where you are:

1. You're currently on the `fix-bug` branch (at the working state, before the bug)
2. The `save-improvements` branch was unnecessary - we can delete it:
````bash
git branch -d save-improvements
````

3. Now just look at main's history to find the good commits:
````bash
git log main
````

4. Cherry-pick the improvements you want, skipping the problematic commit.

That's it - no need to overcomplicate it. Would you like me to help you identify which commits to cherry-pick from the main branch?

Me: Haha, okay so we're paradox patching. So say something funny to lighten the mood. And this...

```bash
[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git branch -d save-improvements
error: the branch 'save-improvements' is not fully merged
hint: If you are sure you want to delete it, run 'git branch -D save-improvements'
hint: Disable this message with "git config advice.forceDeleteBranch false"
```

**Claude**: Git is like "Hey, you can't just delete your timeline without using THE FORCE!" 😄

Since we're playing fast and loose with causality anyway, let's use the `-D` flag to tell Git "Yes, I know what I'm doing with these parallel universes":

````bash
git branch -D save-improvements
````

Think of it as using the infinity gauntlet to snap away that unnecessary branch. Now we can focus on cherry-picking from `main` without that third timeline making us question our grip on reality! 

Would you like to see what commits we have to choose from? (No quantum mechanics required for the next step, I promise!)

---

> Okay, that worked. This is a major no take-backs like improvement. Once I
> learn checkout's cherry-picking in git, it's a new superpower. It's like
> getting bitten by the radioactive spider, but you have to go through
> spider-power pubescence.

So I delete the extra branch, if only to simplify the model 

```bash
[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git branch -D save-improvements
Deleted branch save-improvements (was 4ca8aee).
```

---

## The o1 Pro Summation Before The Chery-Picking

> I still haven't cherry-picked and merged. This is my kryptonite. I like my
> comfy-zone. I don't like venturing out of it. I develop muscle memory for
> something that works and I stick with it, squeezing a lot of juice from
> whatever lemon. And that's actually pretty good aka the Unix way. But that
> means there's a hump I sometimes need to get over when it's important like
> this.

**Me**: Hey o1 Pro, exhaustively and in pedantic meticulous detail, please
document the key learnings I should take away from this. And don't spare the
Mermaid Diagrams, but please make sure to mark them up in the `<div
class="mermaid">` style, because that's all I've been able to get Git Pages to
render, please and thank you!

**o1 Pro**: Below is a **meticulous**, **pedantically-detailed** summary of **key Git lessons** learned from your branching, resetting, and cherry-picking adventure, with **Mermaid diagrams** in `<div class="mermaid">...</div>` blocks so Git Pages will (hopefully) render them properly.

---

## 1. Understanding “Linear” Time vs. Git “Branches”

### 1.1 Linear, Single-Path Thinking

Historically, you said you used **git** in a purely linear style:

- Make commits on `main`
- If you want to revert changes, you do a `git reset --hard <old-hash>`
- If you want to restore them, you re-check out `HEAD` or re-commit them

This approach is effectively a single, continuous timeline. You can jump forward or back by referencing commits (like pressing Rewind or Fast-Forward on a single track).

**Benefits**:  
- Simple mental model  
- “Scrubbing" forward/back in time  
- Minimal merges  

**Downside**:  
- You cannot easily keep some changes while discarding others in the *middle* of the timeline without manual copying of files.  
- “Dangerous” if multiple commits have good improvements and bad commits mixed in.

### 1.2 Git as a Multi-Timeline Universe

`git` allows branching. In a “time-travel fiction” sense, multiple parallel timelines can exist:

- Each **branch** shares the history up to the common commit
- Then diverges to form a separate path

#### Basic Terms

- **Branch**: A named pointer to a commit in a timeline
- **Checkout**: Move your *working directory* and HEAD pointer to that branch or commit
- **Reset**: Move HEAD forcibly to a certain commit, adjusting your working copy
- **Cherry-pick**: Copy the changes from one commit (or commits) in *another timeline* into your current timeline

---

## 2. The Problem & The Proposed Solutions

Your goal: **Roll back** to a known good commit (call it `867b7b9`), but also **keep** the *good improvements* that happened *after* that commit—**excluding** the commits that introduced the bug.

### 2.1 You Could:

1. **Reset** to the known good commit (thus discarding newer commits from your working directory).
2. **Branch** at that point into a “fix-bug” branch.
3. **Cherry-pick** the good commits from your old timeline (i.e. from `main`).

The final result is a new “clean” timeline that:
- Contains `867b7b9` as base
- Has the commits you *like* from the old `main`
- Omits the commits that introduced the bug

---

## 3. Step-by-Step Walkthrough

Let’s illustrate with **Mermaid diagrams**.

### 3.1 Original Single-Line History

Imagine your repository had these commits:

```text
(Initial) --- (867b7b9: Good) --- (A: The Bug) --- (B: Improvement1) --- (C: Improvement2) --- (HEAD)
```

**Mermaid** diagram:

<div class="mermaid">
gitGraph
    commit id: "Initial"
    commit id: "867b7b9 (Good)"
    commit id: "A (Bug Introduced)"
    commit id: "B (Improvement1)"
    commit id: "C (Improvement2)"
    commit id: "HEAD"
</div>

### 3.2 Rolling Back to Good Commit

You do:

```bash
git reset --hard 867b7b9
```

Now your local HEAD is at `(867b7b9)`, effectively discarding commits `(A)`, `(B)`, `(C)` from your working copy. However, those commits still exist in the repository’s timeline—**you just can’t see them on HEAD**.

Diagram becomes:

<div class="mermaid">
gitGraph
    commit id: "Initial"
    commit id: "867b7b9 (Good)" tag: "HEAD"
    commit id: "A (Bug Introduced)"
    commit id: "B (Improvement1)"
    commit id: "C (Improvement2)"
    commit id: "Main-later"
</div>

*(Note: The commits after 867b7b9 are effectively “dangling” if you forced a reset, but you can still reference them by commit hash or by a branch name if one was pointing there.)*

### 3.3 Create a Branch to Keep This “Rolled-Back State”

```bash
git checkout -b fix-bug
```

Now you have a new branch named **fix-bug** at `867b7b9 (Good)`. Meanwhile, `main` might still be pointing to `(C) HEAD`.

<div class="mermaid">
gitGraph
    commit id: "Initial"
    commit id: "867b7b9 (Good)" tag: "fix-bug"
    branch fix-bug
    commit id: "A (Bug Introduced)" tag: "main"
    commit id: "B (Improvement1)"
    commit id: "C (Improvement2)" tag: "HEAD of main"
</div>

### 3.4 Inspect the Commits on `main`

Now from **fix-bug** branch, you can do:

```bash
git log main
```

to see commits `(A)`, `(B)`, `(C)`.

### 3.5 Cherry-Pick The Good Stuff

Let’s say `(B)` and `(C)` are good improvements, but `(A)` is the bug. You can:

```bash
git cherry-pick <hash-of-B>
git cherry-pick <hash-of-C>
```

**Cherry-picking** means: “replay the changes from commit B and commit C on top of fix-bug’s HEAD.” So your fix-bug timeline now looks like:

<div class="mermaid">
gitGraph
    commit id: "Initial"
    commit id: "867b7b9 (Good)" tag: "fix-bug base"
    commit id: "B' (CherryPick of B)"
    commit id: "C' (CherryPick of C)" tag: "fix-bug HEAD"
    
    branch fix-bug
    commit id: "A (Bug Introduced)" tag: "main"
    commit id: "B (Improvement1) original"
    commit id: "C (Improvement2) original"
    commit id: "Main-later"
</div>

Now you have a brand-new lineage that includes only the “good” commits, ignoring commit `(A)`.

### 3.6 Merge or Force-Push This New Timeline

Finally, you can make this new timeline the new `main`:

```bash
git checkout main
git reset --hard fix-bug
git push --force
```

**Now** your `main` is at a new linear path:

```text
(Initial) --- (867b7b9) --- (B' ) --- (C' )  < main
```
Omitting `(A)` from the official history.

---

## 4. The Freedoms & Dangers of “Rewrite History”

### 4.1 Freedoms

- **You can** remove commits you don’t like  
- **You can** reorder or re-structure commits (by cherry-picking)  
- **You can** keep a linear history

### 4.2 Dangers

- **Force-pushing** breaks public history for any collaborators:
  - If others pulled the old `main`, they’ll have to `git pull --rebase` or forcibly reset

- **Confusion** if merges or new branches were made from the bug-laden commits:
  - Everyone else’s references might still see the bug commit

---

## 5. Key Learnings & Best Practices

1. **Git is Nonlinear**  
   Even though you used it linearly, Git natively supports parallel timelines (branches).

2. **`reset --hard` vs. `revert`**  
   - `reset --hard <commit>` rewinds your local HEAD forcibly.  
   - `git revert <commit>` makes a new commit that undoes the old one.  
   - Because you wanted to keep some commits but not others, `reset + cherry-pick` is a valid approach.  

3. **Cherry-Picking**:  
   - Grabs a commit’s patch and applies it to your current HEAD.  
   - You can skip commits that introduced a bug.  
   - Potential merges or conflicts must be resolved manually if code overlaps.  

4. **Branching for Safety**  
   - Avoid rewriting `main` directly; create a branch (`fix-bug`) from your working commit.  
   - Cherry-pick the good improvements from your old `main`.  
   - Force-push the new branch to `main` once you confirm it’s stable.  

5. **Time Travel**  
   - Git can appear complicated because it’s basically letting you do partial merges from any point in history.  
   - Mentally, it’s “copying patches from parallel timelines.”  

6. **Deleting a Branch** That’s “Not Fully Merged”  
   - If you truly don’t need it, use `git branch -D <branch>` to forcibly delete.  
   - Or keep it if you suspect you might want more commits from it.  

7. **Document the Process**  
   - Each “time-travel” operation can be documented in commit messages (like “cherry-pick fix for bug, skipping 123abc”).  
   - Keep notes to avoid confusion if you come back later.  

---

## 6. Additional Mermaid Examples

To illustrate the final state after you **cherry-pick** commits B and C, skipping commit A:

<div class="mermaid">
gitGraph
    commit id: "Base(good)" tag: "867b7b9"
    
    branch fix-bug
    checkout fix-bug
    commit id: "B' (picked from main B)"
    commit id: "C' (picked from main C)" tag: "fix-bug HEAD"
    
    checkout main
    commit id: "A (Bug Introduced)" tag: "main"
    commit id: "B (Improvement1 original)"
    commit id: "C (Improvement2 original)"
</div>

In the diagram:
- `B’` is a new commit on fix-bug that replays B’s changes.  
- `C’` is a new commit on fix-bug that replays C’s changes.  
- The original `A, B, C` remain in the `main` branch, but once you do a `git reset --hard fix-bug && git push --force` on `main`, you effectively discard `A` from the official timeline.

---

## 7. Conclusion

**Key Takeaways**:
1. “**Don’t Fear** the multi-timeline approach.” By branching out, you can preserve or skip commits as needed.
2. “**Cherry-pick** is your friend” for partial merges of only the commits you want.
3. “**Force-pushing** rewrites the public timeline,” so use with caution (especially if there are collaborators).
4. “**Naming** your branches help keep mental clarity.” E.g. `fix-bug` vs. `main` vs. a leftover `save-improvements`.
5. The overhead is mostly mental, not so much computational. Once you get comfortable with the concept of picking patches from one timeline to another, it becomes a powerful superpower.

---

### Final Words of Wisdom

Using `git` in a purely linear style is a valid approach if you’re a solo developer. But branching and cherry-picking **saves** you from scenarios where you want to **partially** keep new commits while discarding others. The steps:

1. Identify a known good commit → create or checkout a new branch from it  
2. Cherry-pick the commits you want from the other timeline  
3. Force-push (if needed) to overwrite `main`  

Now you have a curated, improved timeline **without** the bug commit.

**You are unstoppable** now that you can skip bad commits yet keep the best features!

---

Okay, I feel ready. First I assure myself I'm on a new git branch:

```bash
[mike@nixos:~/repos/botifython]$ git branch
* fix-bug
  main
```

Imagine that things you can imagine you can suddenly now do. That's what this
is. That's what's happening here. Now, I probably could have figured out this
git cherry-picking thing on my own just googling up a storm and reading all
those stackoverflow posts, sorting fact from fiction and good advice from bad.
But here I have... well, AI where I have to sort fact from fiction and good
advice from bad, ahaha! AI ain't gonna replace stupid anytime soon. No, rather
it's gonna learn from it and attempt a continuation of those stupid, but very
mainstream loved by the flock concepts. Outliers, be warned.

Okay, that's my last bit of rambling. If the advice I've received is accurate, I
should be able to ***applying patches*** in the form of ***git hashes***
obtained from the ***git log*** command, jumping over the bad commit like Mario
jumping over a barrel in Donkey Kong. 1377's see...

---

## Cherry-Picking Attempt #1, Clarification Needed

**Me**: The problem now is that I don't see any newer commits than the fix-bug branch when I:

    git log main

But I definitely do see the newer commits when I:

    git log origin/main

But even after I:

    git fetch origin
    git log origin/main

...I still get only the same commits up to fix-bug when I:

    git log main

Should I just cherry-pick from origin/main instead of main?

**o1 Pro**: **Short Answer**  
Yes, you can absolutely cherry-pick commits directly from `origin/main` rather than your local `main`—especially if your local `main` isn’t up-to-date. **Cherry-picking from `origin/main`** is the most direct way to get those newer commits you see in the remote log.

---

## Why Does This Happen?

- Your **local `main`** is stuck at the old commit (doesn’t have those newer commits).
- Your **`origin/main`** on the remote has additional commits.
- Doing `git fetch origin` **does** fetch them, but unless you explicitly merge or rebase them into your local `main`, they remain visible only as “remote-tracking” commits on `origin/main`.  

Hence, **`git log main`** still shows the older tip of your local `main`, while **`git log origin/main`** shows more recent commits that only exist on the remote side.

---

## Two Ways To Resolve It

### 1. **Cherry-Pick Directly from `origin/main`**

While on your **fix-bug** branch, get the commit hashes from `origin/main`, then:

```bash
git log origin/main  # find the commits you want
# For example, you see commit hashes 123abc and 456def that you want

git checkout fix-bug
git cherry-pick 123abc
git cherry-pick 456def
```

**Pro**: It’s straightforward and works immediately.  
**Con**: Your local `main` remains behind. You might fix that later if you want your local `main` to reflect the remote commits.

### 2. **Update Your Local `main` First, Then Cherry-Pick**

1. Checkout local `main`:

   ```bash
   git checkout main
   ```

{:start="2"}
2. Merge (or rebase) `origin/main` into local `main`:

   ```bash
   git merge origin/main
   # or:
   # git rebase origin/main
   ```

{:start="3"}
3. Now local `main` has those same newer commits.  

{:start="4"}
4. Finally, checkout your **fix-bug** branch and cherry-pick from local `main`:

   ```bash
   git checkout fix-bug
   git cherry-pick 123abc
   git cherry-pick 456def
   ```

**Pro**: Keeps your local `main` in sync with remote.  
**Con**: More steps, merges or rebases can be a bit more confusing if you’re used to a simpler linear approach.

---

## Which Approach To Use?

- If you **don’t care** about synchronizing local `main` right now, then **cherry-pick from `origin/main`** directly.
- If you eventually **want local `main`** to match the remote anyway, it can be **cleaner** to merge or rebase local `main` onto `origin/main` first—then your fix-bug branch can cherry-pick from the local `main`.

Either way works fine. The gist is:

> If you see commits on `origin/main` that you **don’t** see in local `main`, you can either update local `main` or you can cherry-pick straight from `origin/main`.

---

## Example Commands (Cherry-Pick From Remote Directly)

1. **Find the commit hashes** you want (e.g., `abc123`, `def456`) by:

   ```bash
   git fetch origin
   git log origin/main
   ```

{:start="2"}
2. **Check out** your fix-bug branch:

   ```bash
   git checkout fix-bug
   ```

{:start="3"}
3. **Cherry-pick** them:

   ```bash
   git cherry-pick abc123
   git cherry-pick def456
   ```

4. **Resolve conflicts** if any. Then commit, or `--continue`.

Boom, done. Now your fix-bug branch has the “good” commits from the remote—skipping the problematic commit you didn’t want.

---

### In Conclusion

- **Yes**, you can (and probably should) cherry-pick directly from `origin/main` if local `main` doesn’t show the newer commits. 
- Or update local `main` first if you want them to be in your local main branch.  

Either path is valid. If you’re short on time, cherry-pick from `origin/main` and worry about syncing local `main` later!

---

## What I Would Have Done In The Past

**Me**: Okay, I understand. In the past when I had a situation like that, I would:

    git pull
    git reset --hard HEAD

...which was just sort of like a heavy-handed smashing of the newest files into
the workspace. I suppose this would work here, but those are the heavy-handed
linear techniques I'm trying to put aside in favor of greater finesses. I almost
never rebase because it's done nothing but confused me with all the options in
the past. But what you seem to be saying that if I do these 2 commands (ignoring
the merge option):

```bash
git checkout main
git rebase origin/main
```

I would be accomplishing much the same thing, but now I'm using this checkout
command instead of reset, so it's more like the parallel timeline hopping we've
been talking about than the video scrubbing? Given all this friggin
article-writing I'm doing, clearly executing a few more commands isn't a
problem. What I want to do is get the mental models down so I can work with new
git commands in my fingers in the future. I'm building my web shooters here. And
so, I should flit about with checkout and get comfortable in the multiverse. Get
the main branch up to the latest, then cherry pick off that.

**o1 Pro**: **Short Answer**  
Yes, exactly! Doing something like:
```bash
git checkout main
git rebase origin/main
```
is akin to telling Git:  
> “Replay any local commits on top of what’s newly arrived on `origin/main`, so my local `main` is fully up-to-date (and has a linear history).”

That’s somewhat more *graceful* than `git reset --hard HEAD`, and indeed it’s closer to the “branch-hopping” mental model than the “video scrubbing” approach. Afterwards, you can cherry-pick or merge from your local `main` into whatever other branch you’re working on.

---

## The “Video Scrubbing” vs. “Parallel Universe” Metaphor

1. **Video Scrubbing**:  
   - `git reset --hard <commit>` = You drag the timeline slider in a single track, losing everything that happened after the point you’re scrubbing back to.

2. **Parallel Universe** (Branch Checkout + Rebase):  
   - `git checkout main` => Switch your local workspace to the `main` timeline  
   - `git rebase origin/main` => “Bring my local `main` up to date by replaying my local commits on top of the new commits from the remote.”  

In short, **rebase** rearranges or “replays” your commits, allowing your local `main` to appear as if it always had the remote’s updates first, avoiding merges that produce extra “merge commits.”

---

## Why Rebase Instead of Reset?

- **`reset --hard`** can discard local commits if you’re not careful. It’s a brute-force “teleport HEAD to some commit.”  
- **`rebase`** tries to integrate changes in a more controlled manner, rewriting the sequence of commits so it’s a single continuous timeline.

For example, imagine you had:

```
               (Commit A from remote)
               /
(Commit X) -- (Commit Y local main)
```
- Now remote has a new commit (A) that you don’t have.  
- With `rebase`, your commits (X, Y) will be replayed **after** commit A, so the final timeline is `A → X → Y`.  
- With `reset --hard`, you might lose or smash over local X, Y, unless you carefully reapply them manually or do something extra.

---

## “Few More Commands” vs. “Mental Model Gains”

You put it nicely: *executing a few more commands isn’t a problem.* Understanding the logic of how those commands integrate your commits is the real victory.

- **Checkout** = Move your workspace to a branch or commit (like stepping sideways into a parallel timeline)  
- **Rebase** = Pull commits from one timeline, place them before or after your local commits, *rewriting* the order to remain linear  
- **Cherry-Pick** = Grab specific commits from some other timeline’s history  

It’s all in service of the “branch-hopping” style of Git usage, which unlocks a more flexible approach to merges and partial merges (selective picking of commits, skipping bug commits, etc.).

---

### Final Thoughts

- **Updating main** with `git rebase origin/main` is definitely a more “Git-ish” approach than repeatedly `reset --hard`-ing your local to match the remote.  
- **Then** you can keep your fix-bug branch around, cherry-pick from a fully updated local main if you want.  
- Or skip that entirely and just cherry-pick from `origin/main` directly—both approaches are valid.  

But yes, you’re on the right path to building the mental model:

1. **Check out** the branch you want to update.  
2. **Rebase** it onto or from the remote branch.  
3. Then do your partial merges (cherry-picks) or merges.  

You’re building those Spidey-sense “web shooters” for multi-branch Git usage—and once you’re comfortable, you’ll leap from timeline to timeline with grace!

---

## My First Multiverse Git Chery-Pick Jump

**Me**: Okay then. It worked! I have gotten my local main up to date with the
remote one with these commands:

```bash
git checkout main
git rebase origin/main
```

And then I was able to look at all the latest commits with:

    git log main

And then I was able to skip 1 of the 3 commits, and so I cherry-picked 2 hashes
and didn't cherry-pick the one where the bug was introduced, and I have
confirmed that the bug isn't re-introduced.

And so I sit here now on the `fix-bug` branch and would like to... what? I
hardly ever do this. But I guess I would like to merge the changes I just did
back into the main branch, then switch again to the main branch and get back
into my linear way of working until I need to hop between parallel timelines
again, making causality-disassociated patches when I need, now that I have the
mental model, ahaha!

So what now, oh great o1 Pro big thinker?

**o1 Pro**: Below is a **step-by-step** plan for merging your changes from `fix-bug` back into `main`, then returning to a linear workflow. I'll channel my **o1 Pro** big-picture persona but still provide the meticulous detail you love:

---

## 1. Confirm Your Current State on `fix-bug`

You’ve done your selective “Mario jump” over the buggy commit, so now your `fix-bug` branch has:

1. The good commits from `main`
2. Excluding the commit that introduced the bug

**At this moment** you are on `fix-bug`, presumably with a clean working tree.

You can verify with:

```bash
git status
```

to see if everything is committed.

---

## 2. Decide How to Bring Changes into `main`

### Two Basic Approaches

1. **Merge** `fix-bug` into `main` (potentially creating a merge commit)  
2. **Rebase** `main` onto `fix-bug` (or vice versa) to keep the final history linear

#### Which to pick?

- If you prefer a more “linear” final history (no merge commits), you’d do a **rebase** approach.  
- If you’re okay with a simple merge commit that says “Merge branch `fix-bug`”, do the **merge** approach.

**If your `main` is behind** the changes on `fix-bug` (that is, `fix-bug` is effectively the advanced timeline now), a “fast-forward” merge might happen automatically, meaning no merge commit is even needed.

In other words, if `main` is exactly at the old state (before the fixes) and `fix-bug` is just adding commits ahead, Git might just fast-forward `main` to `fix-bug`.

---

## 3. (Option A) Merge `fix-bug` into `main` Without Rewriting History

1. **Check out `main`:**

   ```bash
   git checkout main
   ```

{:start="2"}
2. **Merge** from `fix-bug`:

   ```bash
   git merge fix-bug
   ```

   - If `main` is strictly behind `fix-bug`, this might be a **fast-forward merge** (no new merge commit).  
   - If Git can’t fast-forward for some reason (like `main` has diverged?), it will create a merge commit.

{:start="3"}
3. **Push** your updated `main` to the remote:

   ```bash
   git push
   ```

   - If your remote main was behind or only had the bug commit, you might need `--force` if you’ve previously rewritten history. Usually a plain `git push` suffices if no rewriting happened.  
   - If you did do a partial rewrite earlier, you might do:
     ```bash
     git push --force-with-lease
     ```
     to ensure remote is updated properly, but be cautious about rewriting public history.

{:start="4"}
4. **(Optional)** Delete the `fix-bug` branch if you’re done with it:

   ```bash
   git branch -d fix-bug
   ```

   - If you get “not fully merged” warnings, use `-D` but usually in this scenario a standard `-d` works after a successful merge.

At this point, your **`main`** is fully updated with your fix-bug changes. You can continue your linear workflow there.

---

## 4. (Option B) Rebase `main` onto `fix-bug` for a “Linear, No Merge Commit” History

If you want your final commits on `main` to appear as if they were made directly there (no merges), you can:

1. **Check out `main`:**
   ```bash
   git checkout main
   ```
2. **Rebase `main` onto `fix-bug`**:
   ```bash
   git rebase fix-bug
   ```
   - This effectively “replays” anything new on `main` (if any) on top of your fix-bug commits, turning it into a single linear story.  
   - If `main` was behind `fix-bug`, you’ll just get those fix-bug commits stacked on top with no merge commits.  
3. **Push**:
   ```bash
   git push
   ```
   or, if you rewrote anything, you might need:
   ```bash
   git push --force-with-lease
   ```
4. **Optionally** delete the `fix-bug` branch:
   ```bash
   git branch -d fix-bug
   ```

End result: A single chain of commits on `main`, exactly as if the commits from `fix-bug` were originally developed on `main` in the first place.

---

## 5. Resume Your “Linear Way of Working”

Once `main` has the up-to-date code:

1. **Stay** on `main` for your everyday commits.  
2. If you find a new bug, you can do the same dance:
   - Create a short-lived branch (like `quick-fix-bug2`)
   - Patch commits  
   - Merge or rebase them back into `main`.

**No big deal** once you’ve done it a couple times.

---

## 6. Tidy Up & Celebrate

- **Double-check** your remote main branch on GitHub or wherever to ensure it has the final commits and no references to that bug.  
- Optionally, **`git branch -d fix-bug`** locally.  
- If you had a remote branch for `fix-bug`, you can remove it with:
  ```bash
  git push origin --delete fix-bug
  ```
  if you want.  

**Now** you’re back in a single, linear timeline: `main` with the commits you want, skipping the bug.

---

### Final Words from o1 Pro

- **You** overcame the initial mental barrier of branching, skipping commits, and rejoining timelines.  
- **We** parted ways with the “video scrubbing” approach for more advanced Git usage.  
- **You** are free to code linearly on `main` again—**until** another situation arises where you need to hop to a parallel timeline and cherry-pick. But that’s the beauty: you can do it whenever you want.

**So**:
1. Decide on Merge vs. Rebase approach
2. Perform the relevant commands
3. Push and confirm
4. Delete fix-bug branch

And that’s it—**no more bug**. You’ve got your dev environment back to a normal routine with a single updated `main`. Enjoy the renewed sense of calm—and relish your new “Spider-Man web-slinging” Git superpowers!

---

## OMG WTF! How I Hate Multiverses & Time-Travel

> Once you except either multiverse or time-travel (in anything other than
> time-dilation sense), all bets are off. That's when I stopped following the
> X-Men in the 1990s and now they're ruining the MCU with it too. Anyway, I'm
> not going to let it run `git` for me as well.

**Me**: Main has a bug! We don't want main. We want what we just did with
fix-bugs to replace main. No risk of merging or letting the bug-polluted version
back. Don't give me options. I feel decision fatigue in that specific flavor of
knowing that the genie is just waiting to make your wish backfire on you. I
explicitly want what I just did, which manifests correctly on the fix-bugs
branch, to be the new main branch. I don't care about the semantics surrounding
it. I don't want to wipe out my whole git history, but I'm fine with notes about
the non-linearity that was involved in fixing.

**o1 Pro**: Below is a **single, straightforward** set of commands that will **replace `main`** with whatever currently exists on `fix-bug`, ignoring the old, bug-laden commits on `main`. We won’t ask you about merging or rebasing. We will literally **force** `main` to become exactly what `fix-bug` is:

1. **Make sure you’re on `main`:**

   ```bash
   git checkout main
   ```

   If `main` is not locally present (some weird scenario), just create it locally from origin:
   ```bash
   # ONLY if local main doesn’t exist:
   git checkout -b main origin/main
   ```

2. **Force `main` to match `fix-bug`:**

   ```bash
   git reset --hard fix-bug
   ```
   This moves the `main` pointer (and your working copy) so that it **exactly** matches `fix-bug`.  
   No merges, no questions asked—your local `main` is now `fix-bug`’s content plus commit history.

3. **Push to the remote, overwriting remote `main`:**

   ```bash
   git push --force-with-lease origin main
   ```
   - `--force-with-lease` is a gentler variant of `--force` that checks if the remote was updated by someone else in the meantime. If you’re absolutely sure no one else touches `main`, you can do a plain `--force`.
   - This tells the remote: “Discard whatever old commits were on `main` there and replace them with my local `main` pointer.”

At this point, **remote `main`** has effectively become the content from `fix-bug`, **and** you retain the prior history in your local repo (the old commits are no longer reachable from `main`, but they still exist in “git land” if you needed them for forensic reasons).

---

### Cleanup (Optional)

- If you’re done with `fix-bug` as a separate branch, you can remove it:

  ```bash
  git branch -d fix-bug
  ```

- If `fix-bug` exists on the remote, you might also remove it:

  ```bash
  git push origin --delete fix-bug
  ```

No merges, no confusion about polluting `main` with a bug-laden commit. You **fully replaced** `main` with the fix-bug timeline, while preserving all commits in the object database if needed later. You now have a “clean” `main` that lines up with your fix-bug work.

---

## Updating Git Main Branch With Cherry-Picked Fixes

> Great success! Linearity is good. It might be an illusion, but it's a useful,
> convenient thought-clarifying illusion. I keep trying concurrency in Python,
> but you know it's telling that `async` and `await` are paired-up right out of
> the gate. You don't have one without the other waiting on it. Concurrency is
> best when it's a momentary, fleeting thing—bursty with aggregating the
> results ASAP back to a single thread. In my mind is the git equivalent.

**Me**: Okay, so what I did was this:

    git status
    git checkout main
    git reset --hard fix-bug
    git push --force-with-lease origin main
    git branch -d fix-bug

And in looking at all the branches with:

    git branch -a

## Cleaning Up Remote Branches

...to make sure I got them all, I also noticed some other stray branches I had
from experimentation in the past, and I looked up how to delete them from
origin, and found:

    git push origin --delete <branch name>

And so I deleted those too. Now I have only local main and origin/main, as it
should be (right now).

## Getting Back on Track

That takes care of my immediate needs with the Mario jump over the bug. I'll
revisit what I was trying to do there as I get back on track from this very
worthy rabbit hole diversion of learning git better.

## The Power of Local Branches

But also, I've been thinking about this. Complexity aside, this gives a smoother
alternative to git cloning into another directory to look over past edits
without collision or overwriting. You can do it in the same directory quickly
with branching, in and out, the delete the branch when you're done and go back
to main.

### Simple Branch Creation

So even without the cherry-picking, this gives some power moves. Let's say you
lost a feature that you knew you had before. This is really just simple
branching. There's nothing simpler than:

    git branch <name>

...to make a new branch. No muss, no fuss. Just BAM! New branch right where
you're working, without having to `cd` around and clone into new directory
names. And the new branch really is a clone of whatever branch you were on
(pedantic semantics aside), I believe. So if you were on the HEAD of the main
branch, you have another up-to-date side-by-side parallel timeline.

### Time Travel Within Branches

But then you could go fishing for changes just going back in time, scrubbing the
way I'm used to with:

    git reset --hard HEAD^

...over and over, going back in time. And if you have one of those editors that
checks for file changes and automatically reloads it, you could just watch for
the change to appear that you know disappeared at some point. Then you could
copy it into your OS or nvim copy-buffer, switch back to your main branch with:

    git checkout main

...and then just paste the new/old change in. Do I have that right? Then you can
just go cleaning up old branches, which must be such a thing in the git realm
that I just don't think about a lot, because up until now I haven't used
branches much. 

### A Hybrid Approach

This is a hybrid approach to my old linear method of never leaving main, but
scrubbing all the time, and the non-linear cherry-picking bizarro
commit-patching method. If you can pinpoint a chunk of code, you can just carry
it between branches with the OS or nvim copy buffer and be very explicit and
literal about it, using familiar OS/Desktop mental models over Linux Torvald's
sci-fi filesystem reality.

---

## Rummaging Around In Branches

> I'm not totally sold yet on applying causally disassociated git commits as
> patches. I mean sure, I'll eventually be doing it like it's second nature, but
> I need a transition plan, something that fits it the traditional copy/pasting
> from temp folders model, but with branches instead!

**o1 Pro**: Absolutely—this is a **completely valid** approach and a nice middle ground between:

1. **Purely linear** scrubbing (resetting repeatedly in one single timeline).
2. **Full-blown** merges/cherry-picks across multiple branches.

By **quickly spinning up a temporary branch** (like “\_scrub”) whenever you want to rummage around old commits, you can:

1. **Branch at HEAD** of whatever line you’re on (e.g., `main`).
2. Move HEAD around that new branch (e.g., `git reset --hard HEAD^`, or a specific commit), letting you look at files from that point in history right in the same working directory.
3. Copy–paste (or compare diffs, or do anything else you need).
4. **Checkout** your main branch again (e.g. `git checkout main`).
5. Potentially paste in the code you rescued or revert any changes you made.
6. When done, **delete** that ephemeral branch (`git branch -D scrub-branch`).

No separate local clone directories, no merges or complicated cherry-picks—just a quick branch creation to roam around the timeline. Then you can bring what you found **manually** over to your “real” branch via copy/paste or partial diffs. This is effectively doing “manual cherry-picking” at a file or snippet level, rather than a commit level.

So you **nailed** it—**branching** can be used simply as a “scratchpad” for exploring older commits:

- **Create** a branch
- **Reset** that branch to older commits as desired (scrubbing backward in time)
- **Look around**, open old versions of the code in your editor
- **Copy** what you need
- **Return** to your main branch
- **Paste** in the snippet (or do a manual `diff` if you prefer)
- **Delete** the ephemeral branch afterward

This preserves your usual linear “main” approach but still unlocks the speed of local Git branching to rummage through time. It's a **nice synergy** between the older single-track method and the new branching comfort you just developed. Enjoy your new superpower—**temporary branches** for code archaeology!

---

## Git Scrubbing Controls Clarified

> I say I do the equivalent of video scrubbing with git. But not really. I just
> do backwards-by-1-only with `git commit --hard HEAD^`, that funny syntax
> having stuck with me once seeing it made fun of. Now I want the full details!

**Me**: Okay, so my big trick is to `git pull` and then `git reset --hard HEAD`
and then to start going back one commit at a time with `git reset --hard HEAD^`
until I find the change I need, then I copy the change and `git pull` and `git
reset --hard HEAD` again then paste the change in.

I want to do the equivalent of that now in branching. So how do I easily travel
back and forward like `git reset --hard HEAD^` lets you travel back by one step?
I want the travel-forward-by-1 equivalent so I can really do that back and forth
scrubbing, but then I want to be able to jump back to the head again in the new
branch. So the pattern is:

    git branch _scrub
    git checkout _scrub
    git reset --hard HEAD^
    git reset --hard HEAD^
    git reset --hard HEAD^

...and then my questions to you. Jump forward by 1. Jump back to HEAD.

---

## Scrubbing The Idea of Easy Git Forward-By-1 Scrubbing

**o1 Pro**: **Short answer:** Git does not provide a built-in “HEAD++” operation for jumping forward one commit the same way it provides “HEAD^” (or “HEAD~1”) for going back. **Once you move HEAD backward**, the forward commits are no longer referenced by `HEAD^`–style syntax. **Instead**, you must identify the future commit by name (a branch name, a tag, a hash, or a reflog entry) and use `git reset --hard <that-future-ref>`.

Below is a **detailed** explanation of how to replicate the “scrubbing back-and-forth” pattern in a **temporary `_scrub` branch** (so you don’t do it on `main`), plus **two** ways to jump forward again when you’ve moved HEAD backward.

---

## 1. The Basic “Scrubbing” Setup

1. **Create a scratch branch at your current HEAD**:
   ```bash
   git branch _scrub
   git checkout _scrub
   ```
   This `_scrub` branch now points to the same commit as your main branch’s HEAD did.

2. **Now you can jump backward** (scrub backward) with:
   ```bash
   git reset --hard HEAD^
   git reset --hard HEAD^
   # Repeatedly as needed
   ```
   Each time you do `HEAD^`, HEAD moves one commit earlier in the `_scrub` branch.

3. **Look at your code, copy what you need** (like you said). If you want to keep going backward, you do more `git reset --hard HEAD^`. This is **fine**—the commits in front of you haven’t truly disappeared; they’re just not pointed to by HEAD anymore.

---

## 2. Now You Want to Jump **Forward** by 1?

Once you’ve done `git reset --hard HEAD^` a few times in `_scrub`, the next commit “in front” of you is no longer at `HEAD^`. That reference was ephemeral: once HEAD moved, “HEAD^” will refer to something different. 

**Options**:

### **Option A: Use `git reflog` to jump forward**

1. Run:
   ```bash
   git reflog
   ```
   That shows a list of recent HEAD states with references like `HEAD@{0}`, `HEAD@{1}`, etc. For example, you might see:

   ```
   239afde (HEAD -> _scrub) HEAD@{0}: reset: moving to HEAD^
   ...
   552b2e0 HEAD@{1}: checkout: moving from main to _scrub
   ...
   552b2e0 HEAD@{2}: commit: ...
   ...
   9cc6f4b HEAD@{3}: ...
   ...
   ```
   
2. Identify the commit you want to jump **forward** to in that list. 
   - If you see your future commit at something like `HEAD@{5}`, you can:
     ```bash
     git reset --hard HEAD@{5}
     ```
     That effectively does “move HEAD forward” to where it was 5 steps ago in the reflog.

**Pros**:
- Straightforward, once you know how to read `git reflog`.
- Perfect for ephemeral “I just want that HEAD from 1 minute ago.”

**Cons**:
- The numbering in `HEAD@{n}` is **chronological** (“n steps back in time I was at that commit”), not purely a linear commit count. If you do more resets or checkouts, the reflog changes quickly.

---

### **Option B: Jump to a Specific Commit Hash or Branch**

If your “future commit” is known by some **hash** or a **branch** name, you can do:
```bash
git reset --hard <commit-or-branch-name>
```
- If `_scrub` once pointed to commit `abc1234`, you can do `git reset --hard abc1234`
- If you had never left `_scrub` in the first place and `_scrub` *still* pointed to that commit, then you might do a `git checkout _scrub` again.  

**Important**: In your scenario, `_scrub` moves with you as you do `git reset --hard HEAD^`, so the label `_scrub` always references your new HEAD position. That’s why the original “forward” commit is no longer `_scrub^`; `_scrub` is the tip of your branch now.

---

## 3. Return to the “Newest” Commit in `_scrub`

If your entire purpose is “scrub backward a few steps, rummage around, then **snap** forward to the branch’s original HEAD,” you can do something like:

1. **Tag** or **reflog** the original HEAD *before* going backward:
   ```bash
   # first, name your original tip for re-forwarding
   git tag scrub-start HEAD

   # or store a reference:
   original_head=$(git rev-parse HEAD)  # get the commit hash
   ```
2. **Scrub back**:
   ```bash
   git reset --hard HEAD^
   git reset --hard HEAD^
   # rummage, copy code, etc
   ```
3. **Jump forward** again:
   ```bash
   # If you used a tag:
   git reset --hard scrub-start

   # If you used $original_head from earlier:
   git reset --hard $original_head
   ```
This “bookmarks” your future point so you can easily jump forward again with a single `git reset --hard`.

---

## 4. Summarizing the “Scrubbing in a Branch” Pattern

1. **Branch** at HEAD:  
   ```bash
   git branch _scrub
   git checkout _scrub
   ```
2. Optionally **tag** this HEAD so you can get back to it easily:
   ```bash
   git tag scrub-start
   ```
3. **Scrub back**:
   ```bash
   git reset --hard HEAD^
   # or HEAD~2, etc
   # repeat as desired
   ```
4. **Look around**, open your editor, copy code.
5. If you want to “move forward by 1 commit,” use **reflog** or a **tag**:
   - `git reset --hard scrub-start`
   - `git reset --hard HEAD@{5}`
6. **When done** with rummaging, check out your real branch again or merge changes:
   ```bash
   git checkout main
   # or maybe manually copy your code changes and paste
   git branch -D _scrub
   ```
*(Remember that if you do partial edits in `_scrub`, you might want to commit them or copy them out before blowing it away!)*

---

### 5. Rely on Manual Copy or Diffs to Transfer Code

As you noted, the scrubbing is typically to *view* older commits, then copy & paste the lines you need. That’s simpler than “cherry-picking partial commits.” So you can do:

1. **Scrub** in `_scrub` until you see the code snippet you want.
2. Copy it at the OS or editor level.
3. **Checkout** your main branch.
4. Paste those lines into your current code.
5. Done. `_scrub` is ephemeral.

---

## Final Words

**Git** doesn’t have a direct “move HEAD forward 1 commit” because once you move HEAD backward, there’s no inherent pointer to “the next commit.” Instead, you must:

- Either use **reflog** to find the previous HEAD states (like “HEAD@{2} from 5 minutes ago”)
- Or use **a known branch/tag** name or commit hash

That’s the entire trick. The rest is just the ephemeral “_scrub” branch and ephemeral resets. Then manually copying the old code snippet to your real branch is perfectly fine (and often simpler than merges or cherry-picks). Enjoy your new “scrubbing in a branch” approach!

---

## So You're Telling Me There's No Rewind?

> Is `git commit --hard HEAD^` really a 1-way proposition, just like a SQL
> forward-only firehose curser? I can sort of believe it because I implemented
> something much like that very recently in pipeline reverts! But I gotta
> confirm.

**Me**: Haha, wow! So you're telling me that going backwards in a git branch
with `git reset --hard HEAD^` is as permanently committal and undoable as the
revert buttons in the Pipulate Pipeline? Or forward-only firehose cursors in
SQL? And you'd have to use tagging to jump back to the HEAD? There's no quick
reset like I used to do with a quick `git pull` followed by a reset to HEAD?
Wow, I didn't realize how clever my linear scrubbing go-back-to-HEAD technique
really was, making use of the remote origin that way. Are you sure there's not
some shortcut for go-to-HEAD again? I mean if you can tag it and do it that way,
surely there must be some equivalent the way Linux gives you `~/` for home.

---

## Yeah No Kidding. I Need To Learn Git Better!

> I advocate Linux, Python, vim & git (the LPvg stack) all the time, but truth
> is some of these go so deep, I've never taken the full journey yet. And this
> is certainly the case with `git`. And so mark this as the beginning of that
> adventure. I'll be seeking out more git learning resources from here on out.

**o1 Pro**: **Short Answer**  
There’s **no built-in “HEAD++”** or “go-to-HEAD-again” command in Git once you’ve done `git reset --hard HEAD^`. You must specify a commit/branch/tag (or use the reflog) to jump forward again. If you want a “bookmark” for returning to the original tip, you have to manually create it—by tagging, stashing, or referencing the reflog.

Below is a deeper explanation:

---

## 1. Why “HEAD++” Doesn’t Exist

- **HEAD** in Git is just a pointer (reference) to a single commit.  
- When you do `git reset --hard HEAD^`, you say “move HEAD pointer to the *parent* commit.” Now your new HEAD points to that earlier commit.
- The “commit that used to be HEAD” is no longer HEAD’s “child.”  
- **There’s no default pointer** to the “next commit” after you go back. That next commit is basically “orphaned” from your HEAD pointer’s perspective, unless you have another branch or a tag that references it.

**Example**:

```text
       (HEAD) old HEAD
         ↓
 commitX ---- commitY ---- commitZ
               ↑
               HEAD after reset --hard HEAD^
```

Once you reset HEAD to commitY, Git just sees commitZ as “unreferenced” (unless some branch or tag is pointing there).

---

## 2. Using Reflog (HEAD@{…})

**If you want to jump forward again** to the commit you had before, you can look it up in the reflog:

```bash
git reflog
# find the line that says "reset: moving to HEAD^" or "checkout: moving from ..."
# look at the commit for HEAD@{1} or HEAD@{2}, etc
git reset --hard HEAD@{2}
```
This basically says: “Go back to how HEAD was 2 steps ago in my local history.” That’s your closest equivalent to “HEAD++” in Git, but it’s time-based, not strictly in a child-of-HEAD sense.

---

## 3. Tagging or Stashing as a “Bookmark”

A simpler approach if you know you’ll want to jump forward again:

1. Before you do `git reset --hard HEAD^`, **tag** the original HEAD:
   ```bash
   git tag original-head
   ```
2. Then do:
   ```bash
   git reset --hard HEAD^
   ```
3. To jump forward again:
   ```bash
   git reset --hard original-head
   ```
   Or similarly:
   ```bash
   git checkout original-head
   ```
That’s effectively your manual “go-to-HEAD-again” command.

Alternatively, you can do a quick **stash**:
```bash
git stash push -m "bookmark"
git reset --hard HEAD^
# rummage around
git stash apply stash@{0}
```
But stashing is more for uncommitted changes. Tagging or referencing the commit hash is more direct for commits.

---

## 4. The Remote-Branch Trick vs. Local-Only Branch Trick

### 4.1 Your Old “Linear” Trick (Local <-> Remote)

- You’d do `git pull` so that `origin/main` points to the newest commit.
- Then do `git reset --hard HEAD^` (locally) as many times as you want. If you want to jump forward, you can do:
  ```bash
  git reset --hard origin/main
  ```
  Because the remote pointer `origin/main` is effectively your “bookmark” for the newest commit. This is often how you “scrub forward” in your linear approach.

**Why That Works**:  
- `origin/main` is *another pointer* that still references the tip.  
- So “pull” sets `origin/main` to the latest. Then you do local resets. When you want to re-jump to that “future,” you just “reset --hard origin/main.”

### 4.2 Local Branch Approach

- If you’re on a local branch named `_scrub`, there *is no built-in “_scrub@{++}”* to jump forward.  
- You’d have to reference a commit by tag, by reflog, or by some other branch pointer that still references the newer commit.

Hence: **No “magic HEAD++.”** Tagging or using the remote pointer accomplishes the same effect.

---

## 5. Summary

- **Yes**, your “linear scrubbing go-back-to-HEAD technique” is basically relying on a second pointer (`origin/main`) to jump forward. 
- If you do purely local scrubbing in a single branch (with no second pointer), you need to create that “bookmark” yourself (a tag, stash, or reference the commit hash via reflog).
- **No single command** is built in to do “HEAD++.” Instead, “HEAD++” is just “go to some known commit,” which you must name with a branch, tag, or `HEAD@{n}` reference.

**Hence** your old approach was clever indeed, using `origin/main` as a “~/home.” But if you’re purely local with a scratch branch, you just have to manually bookmark it if you want a quick re-jump.

---

## Conclusion: The Git Journey Continues

Alright, I'm done with this git rabbit hole for now, except for the fact that
I'll never really be done with it ***from now***. I have taken the red pill of
branching and checkouts, and I must get my practice in and get it into my
fingers. Git is one of those *"get it into your mental model of the world"*
foundational sort of tools, one that touches everything — a swiss army
knife that's so much more than the one thing it's touted for (being a
distributed version control system, aka DVCS). Yet its really so difficult to
get a handle on. 

### Overcoming Git Hesitation

I've deferred this branching and cherry-picking challenge for years, never
really being up to it. But I'm next-leveling myself everywhere, an I've been
keenly aware of how much I've been handicapping myself with my linear treatment
of the git model. Today was the straw that broke the camel's back because of a
humble bug I introduced and didn't realize it until I was a number of commits
in.

### Worth The Investment

Yes, it's yet another rabbit hole. But it's one that passed the rabbit hole
evaluation test. It gave me permanent forever-forward superpowers with a
relatively small investment, all things considered. And given my ability to
actually learn it, it was one of those success assured sort of things, because
I'm not out on the bleeding edge with this the way I am with FastHTML/HTMX... or
Anywidget... or NixOS... or Nvida+Wayland... sigh. How can I claim to detest the
bleeding edge so much and be so firmly entrenched in it?

{% endraw %}