3 ms·
My dev commits are usually of the form "Add test for Foo.bar", and every master commit has a dozen or so of these dev commits squashed together. Dev commits are
by zdwolfe 8y ago
My dev commits are usually of the form "Add test for Foo.bar", and every master commit has a dozen or so of these dev commits squashed together. Dev commits are not usually immediately useful to anyone other than the author.
- WorldMaker 8y agoLots of different opinions here. I prefer seeing how the sausage was made, just as much as I know that unsettles some folks. Git has a DAG for multiple reasons, but a DAG also gives options for not sweeping everything under the rug in rebase/squashes. I think graph traversal options like --first-parent are more interesting ways to get "clean" commit history logs in "master" than rebase/squash. I've seen (and had to help junior devs fix) far more broken branches due to rebase/squash commits than merge commits in git, that I've almost considered finding ways to entirely disable rebase/squash on projects I work on. They are useful tools that I still sometimes use locally during development myself, but I'd much rather see someone's messy laundry in their commit history than a clean history with an accidental merge bomb lurking under the surface where it isn't even obvious a rebase/squash went bad until you've got the regression report and angry users.