5 ms·
That's one alternative. Another alternative is cleaning that up in a rebase into a series of (hopefully) easy to follow individual commits that do one thing, a
by dllthomas 3y ago
That's one alternative. Another alternative is cleaning that up in a rebase into a series of (hopefully) easy to follow individual commits that do one thing, and then a merge commit pulling in the branch with a description of the change as a whole (and a reference to the pr and any relevant tickets). There are other alternatives as well that make various tradeoffs between effort for the author, effort for the reviewer, ease of reading the git history, applicability of various tools, etc.
- a_e_k 3y agoYes, I'll never understand the "fix typo" commits when `git commit --amend` is so straightforward.
- Terr_ 3y agoBetter-still is `git commit --fixup {rev}` and `git rebase -i --autosquash`, since then the fix(up) can be placed into the most-appropriate commit, which isn't necessarily the most-recent one. Of course, that assumes a you're already got a workforce that is able to do resolve minor conflicts when something else near the typo got tweaked in a separate commit, so I'll grant that `--amend` is easier when starting out.
- tux3 3y agoBetter still, git-absorb figures out in which recent commit your fixups should go on its own (based on which file it touches)
- williamdclt 3y agoAs a reviewer, —amend means I need to reread the whole commit to see what changed. A tiny commit means it takes me seconds. My opinion is that a PR should be small enough that it’s desirable to have it squashed into a single commit at the end anyway.
- matijsvzuijlen 3y agoThe idea is that --amend would be used before pushing the commit that it amends, and so before a reviewer ever sees the original commit.
- pjerem 3y agoThe idea of PR review is that the submission is imperfect and that there will be fixes. Like, "typo fix" fixes.
- dllthomas 3y agoYes, but the history presented upthread looks much more like someone working before submitting a PR for review, rather than changes made in response to review. How much to amend the history at each step is several separate questions.
- keybored 3y ago> As a reviewer, —amend means I need to reread the whole commit to see what changed. A tiny commit means it takes me seconds. A `git commit --fixup` commit can be made which does that. Then when the review is done `git rebase -i --autosquash`. Like squashing but with fine-grained control.
- Terr_ 3y agoYeah, fixup commits are the answer when it comes to responses to reviewers, who can easily see just what changed since the last time. It's even better if there's some system that ensures authors remember to do the squashing, such as by prohibiting actions that would bring fixup commits into the main development branch. Personally, I use `--fixup` even before making a PR, particularly if there's some work that I want to split into "refactoring prep" versus "the new feature."
- GrumpySloth 3y agoIf you use a good tool like Gerrit, then you can see a diff of changes made in a review since an arbitrary previous version of the change.
- jcelerier 3y agoAnd then you have to go through the sysadmin team to temporarily enable push --force on your branch
- williamdclt 3y agoI think you start from a different opinion of what a PR looks like. You say “commits that do one thing”, but in my workplace PRs already are supposed to be small and do one thing: I _want_ them to be squashed into a single atomic commit that’s easy to revert if needed
- keybored 3y agoIMO PRs are supposed to do one thing. But they might end up doing a few more things like refactor, clean up whitespace, or even add a new function in order to facilitate the change. And all of these can be put into their own commits. Now you can make like five PRs for each of those commits. But that seems similar to making five <issue tracker> issues for those commits. You’re already there in the PR. You might not need the overhead of N external items for N commits.
- dllthomas 3y agoA PR should do one thing at a higher level than a commit should do one thing (both at a different level than a function should do one thing). I expect we're agreed that most PRs should be a single commit with a small number of changes in a small number of places, but IME it's not rare to have situations where dividing the changes into groups makes things clearer but where elevating those groups to the level of PR would make things less clear.