3 ms·
But 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.
by gjulianm 4y ago
But 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.