3 ms·
I don’t think ‘linear history’ captures everything. In the orgs I’ve worked in, it was important that mainline always (bugs notwithstanding) always be ‘runnabl
by jrmg 3y ago
I don’t think ‘linear history’ captures everything.
In the orgs I’ve worked in, it was important that mainline always (bugs notwithstanding) always be ‘runnable’. Many people (myself included) will happily commit in-progress changes to branches they’re working on. If these in-progress changes get into the mainline branch - even as a result of a merge - they become part of its history and break the ‘always runnable’ property.
- Nullabillity 3y agoThat's still not a problem, as long as you consider the first parent the canonical parent you can still make assumptions like this along the canonical history, without sabotaging the true history.
- avgcorrection 3y agoThe “run on every commit” stance is an argument against rebasing. Without it you have even more freedom to rebase your branches. And there’s less reason to care about the “true history” (bogus concept).