3 ms·
I used to do that but these days I prefer the whole story be in there so I can reference it later if I run into the same bug in a different place. In general I
by jaggederest 3y ago
I used to do that but these days I prefer the whole story be in there so I can reference it later if I run into the same bug in a different place.
In general I find my past efforts to maintain a clean git history were probably not that useful, as long as you're not running e.g. 4 or 5 branches in parallel with crossing history. Branch off, make change, merge back main, PR, is fine.
- eru 3y agoMost of the time most PRs are small and can be squashed into a single commit, and still produce useful history. Sometimes it makes sense to have multiple commits. The next step up the complexity ladder is: - one preparatory refactoring commit that does _not_ change behaviour - one simple commit that changes behaviour