3 ms·
> Github and Bitbucket very much nudge you towards reviewing the PR's diff as a whole, IME. That's if you're using the merge or squash options. There's an enfo
by dharmab 7y ago
> Github and Bitbucket very much nudge you towards reviewing the PR's diff as a whole, IME.
That's if you're using the merge or squash options. There's an enforceable rebase option in GitHub which preserves the original commits.
> And do you find that you actually look at the history in 5 months' time?
I often go back 2-3 years to do archaeology on code written by people who are no longer in the org.
- lmm 7y ago> That's if you're using the merge or squash options. There's an enforceable rebase option in GitHub which preserves the original commits. A rebase by definition doesn't preserve the original commits (whereas a merge does). But I'm talking about what the workflow for reviewing the PR looks like, before you approve it for merge (in any form) - that's the usual time for review, no?