3 ms·
Rebasing is a necessity for this workflow. If every branch has multiple “merge master into …” commits, and they are also merged back into master (without rebas
by ricardobeat 4y ago
Rebasing 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.