3 ms·
I guess It's my development culture is flawed, but as one-man-team I always time constrained. So I sometimes don't have sufficient time to write too detailed co
by SXX 6y ago
I guess It's my development culture is flawed, but as one-man-team I always time constrained. So I sometimes don't have sufficient time to write too detailed commit messages.
So I end up with "one commit per feature" rather than "one commit per logical change". So I actively using squash during interactive rebase when I prepare to merge completed branch since my commit history sometimes looks like this:
Backend: new set of APIs for XYZ
Backend: implement feature X (+ some long comment)
Frontend: implement feature X
fix for feature backend
fix for backend API XYZ
front fix
backend fix
Yeah again I know I could do better, but yeah I use squashing for this reason. A lot.
- Joker_vD 6y agoWell, uh, yes, that's what the commit history generally looks like (although we do generally put "JIRA-9999: " in front of all commit messages, for context). So what?
- SXX 6y agoWhat I wanted to say that since I don't have that many people other than me looking into my code there no reason to preserve real development history of every feature and IMO 3 "feature commits" are preferable than my development mess of 50 "fix that fix this" commits.