3 ms·
Git rebase always seemed psychotic to me, like you're intentionally removing important historical information about what branch changes came from so that you ca
by sherburt3 3y ago
Git rebase always seemed psychotic to me, like you're intentionally removing important historical information about what branch changes came from so that you can make the diagram of your git database a little prettier.
- Karellen 3y ago> intentionally removing important historical information What makes that information important? > about what branch changes came from Is it even "what branch"? Most of time I'm rebasing my changes from one commit on `main` onto a slightly newer commit on `main`, and when they're finally ready to be reviewed/pushed publically, I'll rebase (and fix) them onto the newest commit on `main`. And I'm generally not doing it so the commit graph looks prettier. I'm doing it so that the changes are as self-contained and as easy to review (either now, or at some point in the future) as possible, because the merge commit is as simple as possible. (If it's even necessary.) If a merge commit involves a bunch of differences from both parents, that can be tricky for people to reason about.