3 ms·
I wish more people were comfortable with rebasing. This is my favorite workflow too, but I've never been in a team where we're able to do that as a default, unf
by ricardobeat 4y ago
I wish more people were comfortable with rebasing. This is my favorite workflow too, but I've never been in a team where we're able to do that as a default, unfortunately it requires an understanding of git that's deeper than the average dev deems worth.
- BerislavLopac 4y agoNot necessarily. A lot of developers despise the idea of using git GUIs, but e.g. GitKraken makes rebases - even with conflicts - a breeze.
- jaxn 4y agoPlus you get to say out loud “let’s get cracking’” every time you open it up. Just me?
- gjulianm 4y agoBut you don't really need rebasing in this case, right? Merging the main branch into the feature branch would work too, and it's not too difficult.
- ricardobeat 4y agoRebasing is a necessity for this workflow. If every branch has multiple “merge master into …” commits, and they are also merged back into master (without rebasing or squashing) you end up with a huge mess. Reverting anything becomes impossible, and mistakes when merging almost irrecoverable.
- HWR_14 4y agoIs that true? I've never had any problem reverting with the workflow described and I find fixing merge issues to also be trivial. Okay, not trivial, but no harder because I had merged the master onto the feature many times. Why would either of those be harder?
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoNo it isn't, full stop. What you mean to say is you don't like the way the history looks. That's fine, it's a valid criticism. Calling it a necessity is over the line.