3 ms·
You still lose your real commit history though, and I’ve found it useful to have that in the past. A dead end or experimental avenue that turned out not to have
by Nursie 5y ago
You still lose your real commit history though, and I’ve found it useful to have that in the past. A dead end or experimental avenue that turned out not to have use at the time turns out to be a real timesaver later.
I’m fact I’ve found that far more useful than a well curated history.
Having both would be a good thing. Having both in a not-ridiculously overcomplex system even better… I wonder if there even is a sweet spot.
- jen20 5y agoI agree that having both would be preferable - and to some extent GitHub gives you that (via the "squash and merge" button). Unfortunately it doesn't appear that workflow is usable in a lot of cases since the commit message cannot be reviewed independently in this model, unlike in Gerrit. You can always keep your working branches on a personal remote, or interesting sets of changes in gists, however.
- Nursie 5y ago> You can always keep your working branches on a personal remote This kinda defeats the point again, to my view. I’m not familiar enough with gists to know if they would solve this.