4 ms·
My workflow is almost identical to yours except step #2. Why rebase on main when you can just merge from main? It's much simpler, less likely to get hairy merge
by jkubicek 3y ago
My workflow is almost identical to yours except step #2. Why rebase on main when you can just merge from main? It's much simpler, less likely to get hairy merge conflicts. If you're going to squash your PR anyway, the end result is identical.
- sixstringtheory 3y agoI like being able to see the graph with my commits lined up on top of the latest main revision. It helps me order my work in my head. There’s probably a bunch of other ways to visualize that, I just haven’t learned them yet.
- phito 3y agoI really don't get all these people who insist on usingrebase instead of merge. Who wants to spend time resolving meaningless conflicts?! Every time I try it, I instantly regret it.
- nordsieck 3y ago> I really don't get all these people who insist on usingrebase instead of merge. I prefer not to squash before committing. I like having smaller commits in my history. And if you don't squash, then using merge to fix conflicts with main/master before merging looks a lot more confusing. > Who wants to spend time resolving meaningless conflicts?! Every time I try it, I instantly regret it. Typically it doesn't take a lot of time unless you do something weird. Although to be fair to you, it does take more time than using merge.