3 ms·

The up-front process is identical: create a branch to work on something. The development process is identical: create whatever little commits are useful to you

• lmm 3y ago
  > At some point you can decide whether you have ended up with another independent unit of work, and point a new branch at the separate unit, without needing to squash any of the commits you have (branches are cheap). That's a horrible way to work because when you squash a branch it breaks the history of any other branch that's based on it. So you'd have to do a fiddly rebase when you merge your first branch in. > I don't know what you mean by making PRs being "fiddler than rebasing to split/merge commits". What is the fiddliness you see? Imagine I've done a bunch of work in a branch, and then decide I want the contents of that branch to become three commits on master. With your workflow I have to split my branch into three branches, retroactively. That's fiddlier than just turning the commits on my branch into three commits.
  • sanderjd 3y ago
    > With your workflow I have to split my branch into three branches, retroactively. That's fiddlier than just turning the commits on my branch into three commits. It really isn't. Branches are just as cheap as commits. It's super easy to create three branches pointing at three arbitrary commits.