4 ms·
My exact experience (in the context of "merging upwards"). Large merges are a huge pain to do, and are basically impossible to review, too.
by dom0 9y ago
My exact experience (in the context of "merging upwards"). Large merges are a huge pain to do, and are basically impossible to review, too.
- cryptonector 9y agoYes! Reviewing huge merges is infeasible. Besides, most CR tools are awful at capturing history, especially in multi-repo systems. So rebasing and keeping history clean and linear is a huge win there. Though, of course, rebasing is a win in general, even if you happen to have an awesome CR tool (a unicorn I've yet to run into).
- cryptonector 9y agoAnother thing is that keeping your unpushed commits "on top" is a great aid in general (e.g., it makes it trivial to answer what haven't I pushed here yet?"), but also is the source of rebasing's conflict resolution power. Because you're unpushed commits are on top, it's easy to isolate each set of merge conflicts (since you're going commit by commit) and to find the source of the conflicts upstream (with log/blame tools, without having to chase branch and merge histories).