3 ms·

I think the crux of the argument is what you think about private git commits. You may think of them as "holy" history. Assuming the commits are still private, I

I think the crux of the argument is what you think about private git commits. You may think of them as "holy" history. Assuming the commits are still private, I give them no more prestige than the editor's undo log. What do you think of the editors undo log? It's a very real historical log. Should it be treated as "holy" history too? If not, what makes the undo log less true/important than a private git commit log?

Nullabillity 3y ago
If you did X then Y then Z, there's a difference between saying "I did Y, Z, and X" (squashing/summarizing) and "I did Y then Z then X" (rebasing). Squashing is often dumb and unhelpful, because you're now re-summarizing the points in time that you already considered worth highlighting when they happened (when you had the most context to judge them!). Rebasing is lying about the order and/or context that those changes happened in. Your undo log is comparable to squashing, but not at all to rebasing. And then again, the first-order vs second-order summarizing distinction matters, and you already capture the second-order summary in your merge commit. Squashing is just destroying information for zero practical benefit. > private You keep using that word, but branches are often a lot less private than you think. Push it to get a colleagues' input on something? Congratulations, it's now public. Created a pull request that you want to revise? Already public.