3 ms·
Sounds like the problem was not squash merging, but the slow and buggy implementation of Stash (hilariously bad naming for a git-related product btw).
by yawaramin 2y ago
Sounds like the problem was not squash merging, but the slow and buggy implementation of Stash (hilariously bad naming for a git-related product btw).
- lucasoshiro 2y ago> hilariously bad naming for a git-related product btw) I only understood what "Stash" is in this situation after your comment. Looks like it is an Atlassian product that was renamed: https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucketserver/bitbucket-rebrand-faq-779298912.html https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucketserver/bitbucket-r... Funny that they don't mention the name collision as reason for renaming it...
- strawhatguy 2y agoI think Atlassian built their own, and bought the other. And now it's bitbucket. Maybe nothing left of Stash anymore. Maybe that's a good thing.
- strawhatguy 2y agoYeah, it was Atlassian's git thing, or one they bought, and combined it with bitbucket or something. I'll say it was with the configuration and the buggy implementation of squash merging button with Stash. After replacing the repo, people were amazed with how fast it was. Also apparently I became notorious as the committer of the whole repository, since first commit was mine!