3 ms·

I prefer a small branch with many individual commits (cleaned from fixups or not) and a merge with main branch which adds the whole feature. Then you can have t

I prefer a small branch with many individual commits (cleaned from fixups or not) and a merge with main branch which adds the whole feature. Then you can have two levels of reading.

drchickensalad 7y ago
Doesn't this still put all the commits on the main branch?
- makapuf 7y ago
  No you commit in feature branches then merge to main branch.
  - abricot 7y ago
    Do you then keep the branch around forever?
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      The branch history is preserved in the commit graph of the main branch, so you don't need to keep the feature branch.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  You can keep the branch commits for detailed history, and look only at merge commits the when you don't need details: git log --first-parent -m This will show a linear history of merges, treating the merged code as being added in the merge commit. You can add -p to see the diffs.