4 ms·
Changing _public_ history is bad. I don't see any problem with rewriting your _personal_ history before merging it in.
by projectileboy 10y ago
Changing _public_ history is bad. I don't see any problem with rewriting your _personal_ history before merging it in.
- stinos 10y agoNot only not a problem, but a must in my book and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone. For me it's like a new workflow which I always wanted but never could have without git. A lot of days for me now consist of creating a lot of small commits and then every couple of hours when a single 'thing' is finished, start an interactive rebase and create a storyline which is easy to read, understand and follow. This can be even one commit sometimes if it makes sense. And in repos I manage myself an if the change spans several days it's usually big and I might create a seperate branch and have a merge commit so it's extra clear all commits belong to feature/xxx.
- data_hope 10y agoChanging public history is bad, because it makes collaboration and two devs working on one branch harder. But I do not see a problem with rewriting history on a branch, if (and only if) you kind of know that no one else is pulling the changes. Or, when merging a PR, a rewrite is okay too, if the next feature will be branched off of the trunk, too. Also, mercurial's tooling seems to help https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ChangesetEvolution https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ChangesetEvolution with rewritten history by making it easier to track history rewrites. Basically I think this is a path in version control systems worth exploring.