2 ms·
It's not about history. It's about correctness. Let's say there's a master branch at commit M1. You branch off of it. You develop your feature branch. In the m
by ivanche 5y ago
It's not about history. It's about correctness.
Let's say there's a master branch at commit M1. You branch off of it. You develop your feature branch. In the meantime, master is at commit M26. Now on your feature branch all your tests pass, maybe even there's no merge conflict with the current master. But! Master's behaviour changed and you have no idea about it, and no idea whether it affects your branch. You merge feature to branch and kaboom!
Frequent rebasing protects you from this.
- domano 5y agoYou could also frequently merge master into your branch and squash at the end.
- ivanche 5y agoBut squashing changes chronological view, right? Either you want "real" history or not. If you're already willing to do that then with the same amount of work you get cleaner history with rebasing, i.e. no intertwined branches.