3 ms·
Squash merge gives you the same thing.
by EnPissant 1y ago
Squash merge gives you the same thing.
- wtallis 1y agoSquash merges simply guarantee that git bisect will not be able to pinpoint a breaking change, because that history is gone.
- EnPissant 1y agoIf you treat a PR as a unit of work, then there is nothing to bisect. If you don't treat it as a unit of work, then people just edit their git history to merge commits just like a squash.
- Dylan16807 1y ago> If you treat a PR as a unit of work, then there is nothing to bisect. You're bisecting the history of PR merges.
- EnPissant 1y agoYou ignored the part where I claimed that without squash merging, people will just do it manually with git rebasing or amending.
- Dylan16807 1y agoYou listed two cases. One where people do treat a PR as a unit of work, and one where they don't. I responded to the first case. Of course I ignored a claim you made about the second case. If I didn't ignore that, I would be making a strawman out of what you said, mixing up your words in a way that doesn't make sense.
- wtallis 1y agoYou're ignoring the part where squashing commits leaves you with fewer, larger commits to search through, while merging or rebasing leaves you with a more fine-grained commit history that allows a git bisect to better narrow down what changes broke something.