4 ms·
I understand the point of view that it's useful to see what "actually" happened. But the other way to think about it is like this: at some point, when a develo
by dap 11y ago
I understand the point of view that it's useful to see what "actually" happened. But the other way to think about it is like this: at some point, when a developer in the future wants to understand how #master evolved over time, should the burden of linearizing the history rest with that developer (making sense of a complex graph), or with people who make changes to #master when they make them?
- WorldMaker 11y agoObviously, -no-ff merge commits give you big sign boards for groups of changes today. Other than that, maybe all of this is an indication of a need for a meta-UX over the change graph to annotate and describe subgraphs in new ways.