3 ms·
> BTW what git is really missing is a way to mark multiple commits as one unit of work so the granularity stays there but is hidden by default and can be expand
by rawling 2y ago
> BTW what git is really missing is a way to mark multiple commits as one unit of work so the granularity stays there but is hidden by default and can be expanded.
Is that not just a non-FF'd, non-squashed merge of a branch?
- martin-t 2y agoThat's the closest you get today but it means having to make, merge and delete branches all the time. What i propose is something like git squash but that keeps the history internally. It would present as one commit in gitk and other GUIs but could be expanded to see more detail.
- sam_bristow 2y agoDoes gitk have an equivalent of `git log --first-parent`?
- Izkata 2y agoIn the View menu dialog, there's a checkbox for "Limit to first parent"
- normie3000 2y ago> it means having to make, merge and delete branches all the time Isn't this something that git makes simple?
- sam_bristow 2y agoThis is my preferred branching model. Most forges seem to call it "semi-linear history". If you have a lot of people working on the repo you'll probably want a merge queue to handle landing PRs but that's pretty straight forward. It works really well with things like git bisect. It also means history is actually useful.