3 ms·
When I read the commit history I want to see what was committed. "Hmm, I had a half working X509 chain resolver there that turned out to be unnecessary at the
by Nursie 6y ago
When I read the commit history I want to see what was committed.
"Hmm, I had a half working X509 chain resolver there that turned out to be unnecessary at the time but would save me a day's work now..."
- FeepingCreature 6y agoKeep it on a local branch?
- Nursie 6y agoI'd moved workstation by then. If distributed source control is good for anything, surely it's reducing reliance on local state! I don't think there's an easy answer here. I think there are good things to be said for a readable and bisect-able version history, but also that if you're not preserving your real commit history in a way that's backed up remotely then something's probably wrong. I'm beginning to think this area, this schism into two schools of thought, is really a signpost that there's something lacking in git's branching. Or something everyone is missing, including me :)