4 ms·

So you're "spending effort in perfectly curating git history" and agreeing with your parent comment.

• ozim 3mo ago
  Just squash everything before merging and call it a day That is also a line from top comment. Everyone read „perfectly curating git history” and went rage commenting instead of reading and understanding what OP wrote.
  • bonzini 3mo ago
    Nope. Perfectly curating history is indeed the opposite of squashing—you squash because you couldn't be bothered to curate your commits. Squashing is a workaround not an alternative solution.
    • ozim 3mo ago
      You just contradicted your previous comment that was pointing out that fcraaldo is „spending effort in perfectly curating history” … or your comment was a joke with no indication it is a joke.
      • skydhash 3mo ago
        Yep, the curated history is the main branch, which the PR targets. The commit log in the Pr reflects the workflow of the author, which I have no interest in. As the reviewer, I’m only interested in the content (the description and the composite diff of the whole PR). I don’t review commit by commit.
      • bonzini 3mo ago
        I interpreted "I squashed them" as "I used git rebase -i to squash the oopses and fixes". If that's not what the user does, and rather squashes the PRs, then indeed I would be disagreeing with him.