4 ms·
That's the problem with all these guys obsessed with clean commit history.
by igorgue 11y ago
That's the problem with all these guys obsessed with clean commit history.
- ionforce 11y agoWhat's wrong with having a clean commit history? I think it's something people take too lightly.
- seba_dos1 11y agoNothing. Just like there's nothing wrong with not having it clean.
- ionforce 11y ago> there's nothing wrong with not having it clean. Untrue.
- bronson 11y agoDepends on the project. If I ran the Linux kernel, I'd insist on clear commits too.
- Pharaoh2 11y agoOh no no no. If you are handling something as important as the Linux kernel, you will absolutely want traceability over anything as trivial as clean history. You will impose signed commits and signed merges only... none of these FF stuff. If you want clean history on top of that, you will enforce that on original pull request not after the fact.
- bronson 11y agoI'm responding to, "there's nothing wrong with not having it clean." Yes, there often is. And I do enforce it on the original pull request.
- igorgue 11y agoYou need that level of traceability on each commit specially on the Linux kernel, all our little projects sure, destroy the history, is fine.
- berdario 11y agoWell, as this submission demonstrates... you lose integrity and accountability (which you never had in the first place, if you don't sign your commits)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]