3 ms·
At my workplace we generate ~150 commits every week or two. There are a lot of trash commits and the history is completely unreadable. I'm sure that's barely a
by ZephyrBlu 6y ago
At my workplace we generate ~150 commits every week or two. There are a lot of trash commits and the history is completely unreadable.
I'm sure that's barely any compared to large companies, so I really question the value of commit history unless message guidelines are well enforced.
- maccard 6y agoWe go through ~600 commits per day. In my experience, there's nothing worse than looking for when a value was changed from 10 to 100, and finding it in a "Merged from X" commit with the history of why the value was changed from 10 to 100. I don't often (ever?) browse the history, but I _do_ regularly search the history using tooling, (git log | grep <something>), and more is more in that case, even if the history isn't perfect.
- saagarjha 6y agoThat just sounds like a bad squash.
- maccard 6y agoIf the original commits are: - Change X to 10 by Foo - Change X to 100 by Bar - Change X to 50 by Baz And that gets squashed into `Change X to 50 by Baz`, you lose the context as to why Foo and Bar changed it, and the values. If I need to go investigate an issue with X, I'd rather thave the history of all the changes.
- saagarjha 6y agoCommits by multiple people should rarely, if ever, be squashed.