4 ms·
I generally prefer PRs that have multiple atomic commits to be split up in separate PRs. If the atomic commits can't be reviewed separately/introduce non-workin
by deredede 2y ago
I generally prefer PRs that have multiple atomic commits to be split up in separate PRs. If the atomic commits can't be reviewed separately/introduce non-working states, they are probably too small.
> One rule I have for any rebasing is, when there may be more than one person using the branch, no more rebasing that branch.
That is the one rule to obey for rebasing to be useable at all.
- account42 2y ago> I generally prefer PRs that have multiple atomic commits to be split up in separate PRs. If the atomic commits can't be reviewed separately/introduce non-working states, they are probably too small. No commit should introduce a non-working state but it often still makes sense to review all commits that form a new feature together. After all, you are not just reviewing if every commit does what it says and doesn't break anything etc. but also that the commit is the correct approach for the final goal - and that often requires knowledge about how later parts are implemented.