3 ms·
I'd be quite happy with seeing the three jobs in the article as three separate PRs. Fixing a bug and adding a feature are two jobs that, as I think we all agree
by danparsonson 2y ago
I'd be quite happy with seeing the three jobs in the article as three separate PRs. Fixing a bug and adding a feature are two jobs that, as I think we all agree, need to be tracked individually - so work on them individually.
> As well, sometimes CI won't pass on one of the stages meaning it can't be a separate PR
Could you give an example of this? Not sure what you mean.
- Forge36 2y agoCommits aren't always perfect. Sometimes I'll make the unit test first, which fails CI and the next set of commits implements the behavior.
- trashburger 2y agoBy doing this, you break commit atomicity and make bisects hell. Please don’t do this. Commits aren’t perfect at first for sure, but they should be by the time you make them reviewable.
- snatchpiesinger 2y agoIt's fine to break commit atomicity on feature branches. You can use git bisect --first-parent on you development/master branch.
- trashburger 2y agoI completely disagree. In doing so you lose all visibility into the components and gradual evolution of the code that atomic commits provide. Same thing with squashing (which is just the worst).