3 ms·
Or just don't squash. There's no need. In fact, if you're doing a review process like this, it would be active vandalism to to squash, since there is a big diff
by OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Or just don't squash. There's no need. In fact, if you're doing a review process like this, it would be active vandalism to to squash, since there is a big difference between "code said x, commented on by reviewer, changed to y" vs "code says y".
- globular-toast 3y agoIf you don't squash then you're essentially dedicating the history to code reviews because it won't be much use for anything else. If you leave broken commits on the main branch then it becomes really hard to bisect to find regressions. And that's the only reason for keeping history really.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agogit bisect --first-parent Solves that issue entirely. Let branches hold their history, let the release/main branch hold the history of stable builds.
- globular-toast 3y agoIf branches were rebased and then merged with `--no-ff` that could work.