3 ms·

fix typo yet another typo test fix aaah, why is this test failing? merge foobar/narf revert foo foo Is just not a good history to preserve

• vultour 4y ago
  Boggles my mind how so many people in this thread are against rebasing. Have they never needed to remove these commits? I do that pretty much daily, especially when troubleshooting something in a CI pipeline.
  • Zitrax 4y ago
    I prefer rebasing too, but merging doesn't mean that you have to merge in all noisy minor fixups, you can combine the strategies and rebase the feature branch into a set of sensible commits, then merge that branch. Preferably even with a CI that checks each commit before merge such that it will not cause issues later during eventual bisections. --fixup and --autosquash are handy for such workflows.
    • __blockcipher__ 4y ago
      Using interactive rebase in that way is a great tool, but we're talking about people that are against rebasing in general, so it's not the most relevant point IMO. i.e. the anti-rebase people are usually of the "never rebase" flavor. Because they're also the "history is sacred even though I never look at history because if I did I would get dizzy and throw up" crowd :P
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]