4 ms·
It's also useful in code reviews in general - I don't care about your development noise, and every single person in the future does not need to read it to under
by Groxx 3y ago
It's also useful in code reviews in general - I don't care about your development noise, and every single person in the future does not need to read it to understand the final result either. Rebases solve that: present a coherent story for easy understanding, rather than the messy reality.
When you're purely local, sure - do whatever the heck you want. Nobody cares. But messy merges are rough for collaboration, both present and future.
(rough, not fundamentally wrong, to be clear. It's just a friction tradeoff, dealing with human behavior has next to no absolutes)
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoMy largest problem about rebasing a branch onto master as a single commit is that it becomes harder to do provenance. When the tip of my branch gets built (1) and the merge target is not ahead (2) I can actually retag the output of the build of the branch as what is now on master. When you do a squash, while the default commit message contains the SHA, it no longer carries a semantical meaning. It's just a string of text.