3 ms·

I disagree with some of your comments, is git stash really essential or unneeded complexity? That's debatable, I never use it personally. What I don't like in

by renox 9y ago

I disagree with some of your comments, is git stash really essential or unneeded complexity? That's debatable, I never use it personally. What I don't like in git is the loss of history associated with squashing commits, I would prefer having a 'summary' that would keep the full history but by default would ne used like a single commit.

WorldMaker 9y ago
In git you can use merge commits as your "summary" and `--first-parent` or other DAG depth flags to `git log` (et al) to see only summaries first. From the command line you can easily add that to key aliases and not worry about. I think that if GitHub had a better way to surface that in their UI (ie, default to `--first-parent` and have accordions or something to dive deeper), there would be a lot less squashing in git life. (Certainly, I don't believe in branch squashing.) The DAG is already powerful enough to handle both the complicated details and the top-level summaries, it's just dumb that the UIs don't default to smarter displays. (I find git stash essential given that `git add --interactive` is a painful UX compared to darcs and git doesn't have anything near darcs' smarts for merges when pulling/merging branches. Obviously, your mileage will vary.)