4 ms·

My personal recommendation: Development happens on short lived branches, gets merged to master via pull request after code review if needed, but at least some

My personal recommendation: Development happens on short lived branches, gets merged to master via pull request after code review if needed, but at least some automated testing should be done. NEVER DO MERGE COMMITS: Always rebase + fast forward merging only. Branches that never reached production and likely never will should be discarded after a while. Branches that reached production e.g. hotfix branches should be converted to tags after a while.

l72 4y ago
I am the opposite. When it comes to bring short lived branches into the main branch, we only allow MERGE COMMITS, we don't ever do fast forward commits. When looking at history on our main branch, we ALWAYS use `git log --first-parent` which ONLY shows merge commits. Then it shows you exactly what was important (the merge) and in the correct order. I really wish this was the default view of git log, or really, if git log acted like bzr log that would be even better. It would stop all these arguments about how to have linear history.
- 1_1xdev1 4y ago
  Merge commits are annoying IMO because the revert command isn’t always clean or obvious, and you see a lot of noise . But your recommendation of `—first-parent` might alleviate the second concern. Personally I’m a `merge —squash` guy but to each their own
  - foobarbaz33 4y ago
    Do you mean "fast-forward" merges that don't have a merge commit? An actual "merge commit" should make it easier to revert/reset. I always use merge --no-ff to ensure a merge commit is created. With a merge commit it's clear where the feature branch starts/ends.
    - l72 4y ago
      I agree, merges are great, since you have a single commit you can pull out. To back out a merge, you would just do another merge with a reverse diff: `git merge merge-commit..merge-commit^` Also, it makes things like backporting much easier, since you can just pull out the merge commit and it brings in any "subcommits", rather than individually cherry-picking each commit, like you'd have to do with a fast-forward. It also makes life so much easier on other developers that are just working in feature branches. No need to rebase. No need to squash. No need to clean up commits. We allow merging master back into your feature branch rather than rebasing, since in the end it doesn't matter (and sometimes, everything you did is interesting).
      - danwee 4y ago
        Agree as well. In the team we all do: - git checkout -b "new-branch" - git commit - git merge --no-ff master (to get the latest from master into our branches) - git push That's all you need. No rebase or force pushes. Easy.
        l72 4y ago
        Exactly. And if the default view of `git log` wasn't so terrible (if it acted like git log --first-parent), then I think a lot more people would do that too. But I understand why people who just use `git log` complain with merge commits. It is frustratingly hard to see what actually happened, because subcommits from that merge branch show up in the past in your linear timeline and aren't grouped together. It clutters your log and makes it really hard to tell what is going on and what commits are related to each other. bazaar's (now called breezy) log (which we used before moving to git) was really nice. By default, it only showed first parents (direct commits or merges). And if you wanted to see more than that, it grouped merges together. This is what happens when you call `bzr log --include-merged` to show not just the top level merges/commits, but also the sub-commits from each merge: ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 33 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: master timestamp: Tue 2013-09-03 11:39:37 -0500 message: Fixed bug #413 - Add in a blend option ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 32.1.2 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-413 timestamp: Tue 2013-09-03 10:07:03 -0500 message: Merged the Role changes from fix-412 ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 32.1.1 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-413 timestamp: Tue 2013-09-01 10:04:28 -0500 message: Some initial work on a blend mode ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 32 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: master timestamp: Tue 2013-09-03 09:17:27 -0500 message: Fixed bug #408 - Make the interface prettier ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 29.2.3 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-408 timestamp: Wed 2013-09-02 15:31:32 -0500 message: mft ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 29.2.2 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-408 timestamp: Wed 2013-08-24 12:13:17 -0500 message: Fixed multiline support ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 29.2.1 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-408 timestamp: Wed 2013-08-22 11:58:48 -0500 message: Added directories for other layouts. Changed out the logo, and force a size during the signon ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 31 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: master timestamp: Wed 2013-08-28 15:13:24 -0500 message: Fixed bug #404 - Pressing back in the preferences exits the application ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 30.1.1 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-404 timestamp: Wed 2013-08-28 15:11:24 -0500 message: Got rid of the no history junk. It looks like the problem can be solved by calling finish The top level merges are in order by commit/date, while the sub-commits in each branch and in order with respect to their parent, not the entire repo! This even resolves stuff, like in revno 29.2.3 where the master branch is merged into the feature branch (fix-408) to get fix-408 up to date.
  - l72 4y ago
    `merge --squash` generates a nice linear history in the main branch and other developers don't need to worry about rebasing their feature branches or keeping them super clean. That's great. However, `merge --squash` loses its association with that feature branch, which is annoying. You also don't get to see any of the history of what happened in that branch, which can sometimes be really useful if there ends up being a bug that you want to bisect. You don't have any of the original developers individual steps, since it all comes in as a big, unassociated chunk.

l72 4y ago

I am the opposite. When it comes to bring short lived branches into the main branch, we only allow MERGE COMMITS, we don't ever do fast forward commits. When looking at history on our main branch, we ALWAYS use `git log --first-parent` which ONLY shows merge commits. Then it shows you exactly what was important (the merge) and in the correct order. I really wish this was the default view of git log, or really, if git log acted like bzr log that would be even better. It would stop all these arguments about how to have linear history.

1_1xdev1 4y ago
Merge commits are annoying IMO because the revert command isn’t always clean or obvious, and you see a lot of noise . But your recommendation of `—first-parent` might alleviate the second concern. Personally I’m a `merge —squash` guy but to each their own
- foobarbaz33 4y ago
  Do you mean "fast-forward" merges that don't have a merge commit? An actual "merge commit" should make it easier to revert/reset. I always use merge --no-ff to ensure a merge commit is created. With a merge commit it's clear where the feature branch starts/ends.
  - l72 4y ago
    I agree, merges are great, since you have a single commit you can pull out. To back out a merge, you would just do another merge with a reverse diff: `git merge merge-commit..merge-commit^` Also, it makes things like backporting much easier, since you can just pull out the merge commit and it brings in any "subcommits", rather than individually cherry-picking each commit, like you'd have to do with a fast-forward. It also makes life so much easier on other developers that are just working in feature branches. No need to rebase. No need to squash. No need to clean up commits. We allow merging master back into your feature branch rather than rebasing, since in the end it doesn't matter (and sometimes, everything you did is interesting).
    - danwee 4y ago
      Agree as well. In the team we all do: - git checkout -b "new-branch" - git commit - git merge --no-ff master (to get the latest from master into our branches) - git push That's all you need. No rebase or force pushes. Easy.
      - l72 4y ago
        Exactly. And if the default view of `git log` wasn't so terrible (if it acted like git log --first-parent), then I think a lot more people would do that too. But I understand why people who just use `git log` complain with merge commits. It is frustratingly hard to see what actually happened, because subcommits from that merge branch show up in the past in your linear timeline and aren't grouped together. It clutters your log and makes it really hard to tell what is going on and what commits are related to each other. bazaar's (now called breezy) log (which we used before moving to git) was really nice. By default, it only showed first parents (direct commits or merges). And if you wanted to see more than that, it grouped merges together. This is what happens when you call `bzr log --include-merged` to show not just the top level merges/commits, but also the sub-commits from each merge: ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 33 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: master timestamp: Tue 2013-09-03 11:39:37 -0500 message: Fixed bug #413 - Add in a blend option ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 32.1.2 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-413 timestamp: Tue 2013-09-03 10:07:03 -0500 message: Merged the Role changes from fix-412 ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 32.1.1 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-413 timestamp: Tue 2013-09-01 10:04:28 -0500 message: Some initial work on a blend mode ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 32 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: master timestamp: Tue 2013-09-03 09:17:27 -0500 message: Fixed bug #408 - Make the interface prettier ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 29.2.3 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-408 timestamp: Wed 2013-09-02 15:31:32 -0500 message: mft ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 29.2.2 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-408 timestamp: Wed 2013-08-24 12:13:17 -0500 message: Fixed multiline support ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 29.2.1 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-408 timestamp: Wed 2013-08-22 11:58:48 -0500 message: Added directories for other layouts. Changed out the logo, and force a size during the signon ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 31 [merge] committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: master timestamp: Wed 2013-08-28 15:13:24 -0500 message: Fixed bug #404 - Pressing back in the preferences exits the application ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 30.1.1 committer: John Doe <john.doe@example.com> branch nick: fix-404 timestamp: Wed 2013-08-28 15:11:24 -0500 message: Got rid of the no history junk. It looks like the problem can be solved by calling finish The top level merges are in order by commit/date, while the sub-commits in each branch and in order with respect to their parent, not the entire repo! This even resolves stuff, like in revno 29.2.3 where the master branch is merged into the feature branch (fix-408) to get fix-408 up to date.
- l72 4y ago
  `merge --squash` generates a nice linear history in the main branch and other developers don't need to worry about rebasing their feature branches or keeping them super clean. That's great. However, `merge --squash` loses its association with that feature branch, which is annoying. You also don't get to see any of the history of what happened in that branch, which can sometimes be really useful if there ends up being a bug that you want to bisect. You don't have any of the original developers individual steps, since it all comes in as a big, unassociated chunk.