4 ms·

I was commenting exactly on that. You think having every commit build, at the cost of destroying history, is gaining something. I think representing history co

by jiofih 5y ago

I was commenting exactly on that. You think having every commit build, at the cost of destroying history, is gaining something. I think representing history correctly is best, and agree that “squashing buys you next to nothing” other than visually pleasant output. Clearer? My favorite approach is rebase + non-ff merge. Best of both worlds.

jhasse 5y ago
No. They think having every commit build is gaining something. You think the disadvantage (destroying history) is more important, but you can't say that it "buys you nothing".