4 ms·
I can only conclude that people who think squashing a work item into a single commit is great have never had to do serious bug hunting, relying on commit histor
by 000ooo000 3y ago
I can only conclude that people who think squashing a work item into a single commit is great have never had to do serious bug hunting, relying on commit history for context, nor have they ever moved forges and lost the context from "the context is in the PR anyway".
- palata 3y agoI think it's a bit of a limited conclusion. Maybe they really just make small PRs that make sense, and maybe they rewrite the commit message into something useful when squashing.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y agoMy employer has all PRs merged by a bot once they're approved. The bot takes the PR description and uses that as the commit message. The PR is the unit of change that gets reviewed, not the commit. This makes for a nice linear bisectable history of commits (one per PR) with descriptions, references to issues on our tracker, etc. And no need to worry about force pushing, rebasing, etc, unless you want to do so. Of course it's got the same end result as doing an interactive rebase & combining all the in-progress commits into a single reviewable unit of change with a good commit message, but it's a bit more automatic.
- recursive 3y agoI think I've done all those things except forges. I don't know what that one is. I still like squashing. I've wven become the git expert on my team. With squashed PR resolutions, I can more reliably use bisect. Many individual commits were never actually meaningful in the first place.
- 000ooo000 3y agoGitLab, Bitbucket, GitHub, etc are forges