3 ms·

Spot-on for both counts. Preserving a PR's individual commits in the master branch is insane - many of those commits won't represent a fully working system anyw

• sjoruk 5y ago
  > many of those commits won't represent a fully working system anyway This is entirely within the control of the developer(s) working on the project. Whether it's worth it is up to the people working on it. It's certainly not insane though - it's much easier to fix merge/rebase conflicts when each commit is small and easy to reason about.
  • finnh 5y ago
    > it's much easier to fix merge/rebase conflicts when each commit is small and easy to reason about. I agree, but I'd say it in the context of PRs. It's much easier to fix issues (and avoid them) when _PRs_ are small & easy to reason about.
• gouggoug 5y ago
  It's entirely not insane _on the premise that the history is clean_. That's the whole argument that is being made here. If you think that "Preserving a PR's individual commits in the master branch is insane - many of those commits won't represent a fully working system anyway", your issue _is_ "that your commits don't represent a fully working system anyway", _that_ is what you need to fix. You need to make sure your history _does_ represent multiple small digestible atomic chunk of codes, that are understandable individually. By squashing, you're not fixing the root cause, you're treating the symptoms.