3 ms·

One commit per PR? Is that an attempt at making PRs be small and focused? Does it work?

• Macha 10y ago
  No. It's an overreaction to how messy our commits were before. Some team members hate seeing merge commits, and our Stash system did a --no-ff merge previously. Plus there's a lot of contributors so people often had to merge master into their branch to resolve merge conflicts so they could merge, as there's sometimes 10 or more merges to master a day. So one branch might have 2-3 commits of work, and 2 merges from master. So our commit history might look like: * Merge foo into master * Merge master into foo * Update foo per PR comments * Merge master into foo * Second meaningful commit on foo * First meaningful commit on foo This is not a long running branch, it could have been one that was started and had a PR opened at 11am and was reviewed and merged at 4pm. So they instead configured our Stash instance to do an autosquash and if your PR didn't squash required it done manually. Now it looks like * Merge foo into master * Merge bar into master * Meaningful message about foobar from someone that does a manual rebase to avoid the autosquash * Merge quu into master I'm think the new situation is even worse, but I'm outvoted there.