3 ms·
Merges should be considered harmful and disabled by default. They ruin history, get in the way of bisect, may not be reproducible, etc, etc. Sometimes they ma
by thriftwy 5y ago
Merges should be considered harmful and disabled by default.
They ruin history, get in the way of bisect, may not be reproducible, etc, etc.
Sometimes they may be used but more likely as a superuser operation
- benatkin 5y agoGitHub's button to update the current branch annoys me. It creates a merge commit back from the main branch to the feature branch. I would rather it back up the current branch and rebase it or something, or just let me do it the right way manually (rebase and force push).
- no_wizard 5y agoYou can set on the repository if you want it to rebase instead[0] [0]: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/incorporating-changes-from-a-pull-request/about-pull-request-merges https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-...
- benatkin 5y agoI know about that but don't know if it works for updating a branch before merging it. I'll have to try changing it to that setting.
- tomn 5y agoAnnoyingly this always re-writes commits (i.e. never fast-forwards), which means that if you have branches based on the branch you're merging they will need to be rebased, and git will complain about deleting the branch because it looks like it's unmerged.
- secondcoming 5y agoI've never had an issue with merges in 10 years of using git.