3 ms·
> Another important fact is that you don't need to wait till a feature-branch is complete to edit the history. Why would you need to wait until it's complete?
by Quekid5 5y ago
> Another important fact is that you don't need to wait till a feature-branch is complete to edit the history.
Why would you need to wait until it's complete?
I don't feel any need to do that, and I'm constantly rebasing. I guess I must be something about your workflow here.
- sreevisakh 5y agoYou miss the important point here. With rebases, crafting the history is a separate step that can be done only after you've made a few commits. Whether you do it continuously or as one batch makes no difference. With StGit, crafting the history can start at the very beginning of the feature development. It goes hand in hand with the development and can be refactored any time.
- Quekid5 5y agoI'm afraid I still don't understand the workflow. I continually rebase my branch(es) on top of upstream. At any time, I can choose to consolidate a few of my WIP commits into a more (logically) cohesive commit and keep that around for further rebasing. I must be missing something here, but I'm not sure what. (If it helps understanding, we work with Gerrit which basically expects a 'list of patches' on top of the branch you want to commit your changes to. So that's already part of our mentality, but we just use plain git.)