3 ms·

What's the difference between this and squash merging PRs? A commit or a PR can be large. I don't see the difference.

by EnPissant 1y ago

Thorrez 1y ago
I think it's the review process. Do you review 1 commit or multiple?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Dylan16807 1y ago
> A commit or a PR can be large. I don't see the difference. They made it pretty clear they're talking about not-large commits. And they're contrasting that with any-size PRs.
- EnPissant 1y ago
  That's a false dichotomy, lurker. A PR or a commit can be large or small.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    It's not a false dichotomy. They're just using different terms than you would, based on their experience with how the people around them use those systems.
    - EnPissant 1y ago
      It's comparing carefully manicured git history hacking to unregulated PRs. It's pure dogma.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        You agree that they are making a real comparison between two different things. But you also say it's pure dogma? I'm confused.
        EnPissant 1y ago
        >I loathe GitHub PRs because of this. Working at $dayjob the unit of change is the commit, and every commit is reviewed and signed off by at least 1 peer. Because this is exactly what a squash merged PR is. There is no meaningful difference unless you say "but commits are done by good people and PRs are done by bad people".
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        They make it very clear that they are praising small commits, and squash merge commits are usually not small. Squashing is the opposite of what they want. The preference they have is not exactly a problem with github PRs, but github PRs are much more likely to review a big pile of code at once. The amount of code being reviewed at once is a meaningful and extremely objective measure, and that's the thing they're concerned with. Not who made it.
        EnPissant 1y ago
        There is zero chance that any shop that reviews individual commits is not squashing them. I probably wont be able to respond to any more comments. Dang put a slowban on my account because he interpreted one of my comments as right wing.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Well then you're calling them a liar, I guess. But even if they're lying about achieving it, the preference they have for reviewing small commits is a preference that makes sense. It's not some nonsense "us versus them" thing.
        1y ago

What's the difference between this and squash merging PRs? A commit or a PR can be large. I don't see the difference.

Thorrez 1y ago

I think it's the review process. Do you review 1 commit or multiple?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Dylan16807 1y ago

> A commit or a PR can be large. I don't see the difference. They made it pretty clear they're talking about not-large commits. And they're contrasting that with any-size PRs.

EnPissant 1y ago
That's a false dichotomy, lurker. A PR or a commit can be large or small.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  It's not a false dichotomy. They're just using different terms than you would, based on their experience with how the people around them use those systems.
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    It's comparing carefully manicured git history hacking to unregulated PRs. It's pure dogma.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      You agree that they are making a real comparison between two different things. But you also say it's pure dogma? I'm confused.
      - EnPissant 1y ago
        >I loathe GitHub PRs because of this. Working at $dayjob the unit of change is the commit, and every commit is reviewed and signed off by at least 1 peer. Because this is exactly what a squash merged PR is. There is no meaningful difference unless you say "but commits are done by good people and PRs are done by bad people".
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        They make it very clear that they are praising small commits, and squash merge commits are usually not small. Squashing is the opposite of what they want. The preference they have is not exactly a problem with github PRs, but github PRs are much more likely to review a big pile of code at once. The amount of code being reviewed at once is a meaningful and extremely objective measure, and that's the thing they're concerned with. Not who made it.
        EnPissant 1y ago
        There is zero chance that any shop that reviews individual commits is not squashing them. I probably wont be able to respond to any more comments. Dang put a slowban on my account because he interpreted one of my comments as right wing.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Well then you're calling them a liar, I guess. But even if they're lying about achieving it, the preference they have for reviewing small commits is a preference that makes sense. It's not some nonsense "us versus them" thing.
        1y ago