39 ms·
me too. the only reason i can see is laziness when looking at history because merges clutter it, but even then the fix should be in some front-end tool and not
by jheriko 13y ago
me too. the only reason i can see is laziness when looking at history because merges clutter it, but even then the fix should be in some front-end tool and not git itself.
as a real world example bitbucket added a cool feature recently where they grey out merge commits.
personally i love rich and complete history, including merge commits - any practice that damages that is something i'll be highly reticent about adopting.
irl i generally don't need to time travel to achieve my goals...
- sdesol 13y ago"as a real world example bitbucket added a cool feature recently where they grey out merge commits" Interesting. I went a different route by making it very easy for users to dissect a merge commit. For example, if you click on the "Find included commits" link in the first commit at: http://ny.testdrive.gitsense.com/index?#pid=13&cid=20&trail= http://ny.testdrive.gitsense.com/index?#pid=13&cid=20&trail= you'll be able to see all the commits that it included.