[majormajor]

Without squashing it's hard for me to commit as small and often as I would like.

Some things I want out of the final series of commits:

1) everything builds. If I need to revert something or roll back a commit, the resulting point of the codebase is valid and functional and has all passing tests.

2) features are logically grouped and consistent - kinda similar to the first, but it's not just that I want the build to pass, I don't want, say, module A to be not yet ready for feature flag X but module B to expect the feature flag to work. In the original article, this is to say that I want the three commits listed, but not one halfway through the "migrate API users" step.

But when I'm developing I do want to commit halfway through steps. I might commit 50 lines of changes that I'm confident in and then try the next 50 lines and decide I want to throw them away and try a different way. I might just want to push a central copy of what I've got at the end of the day in case my laptop breaks overnight (it's rare, but happens!). I might want to push something WIP for a coworker to take an initial look at with no intent of it being ready to land.

But I don't want any of those inconsistent/not-buildable/not-runnable states to be in the permanent history. It fucks with things like git bisect and git blame.

[tome]

I think there's an ambiguity here between squashing every commit in the PR into a single one, and squashing fixup commits made as responses to review into the commits that originated them.

For example, if the original commit series was

    Do a small refactor before I can start adding the test
    Add the test for the feature
    Do a small refactor before I can start adding the feature
    Work in progress
    Complete sub-feature 1
    Work in progress
    lint
    lint
    Complete sub-feature 2
    Respond to reviewer 1 comments
    Respond to reviewer 2 comments

Then you can either squash the entire PR down to

    Implement feature

or you can, using interactive rebase, squash (or more precisely fixup) individual WIP, lint, and response commits into where they belong to obtain

    Do a small refactor before I can start adding the test
    Do a small refactor before I can start adding the feature
    Complete sub-feature 1
    Complete sub-feature 2

where each commit individually builds and passes tests. I far prefecr the latter!

[majormajor]

I think either of these are fine - and the latter is certainly nice but also requires more work - but both require some sort of "squashing."

I don't understand the proposed workflow of "commit early and often" without any sort of squashing of WIP.

[gloryjulio]

When we publish a stack of commits, our ci ensures that every commit is build and tested individually. There is no consistency issue

Squash and merge actually makes the above goal harder. With rebase + small commits, all we need to make sure is that every commit pass all the build signals and tests during ci

[john_the_writer]

This only works if your commit in a green state. Sometimes we have to change when things are still "Yellow"..

I tend to add all my tests in one go and commit the RED. "tests are written" Then as I pass each test, I commit that.

This pattern works really well for me because if I mess up, then rolling back to the last yellow is easy. I can also WIP commit if I have to fix an urgent bug, and then get back to the WIP later.

[gloryjulio]

Not sure what you mean... When we ship a stack of commits, every commit has to pass everything in CI. You are not suppose to ship a commit that's not passing the ci bar. There is a escape hatch that you can bypass but it's rarely used.

You can make changes before you ship however you wanted as long as they pass ci. If you already shipped the code and want to make changes later, that means making new commit or reverting a bad commit. It's simple as that

[majormajor]

What is "publishing a stack of commits"?

Is that putting it up for review? Or are you not doing a PR workflow at all, in which case this doesn't really relate to the article.

Is the expectation that the developer either never commits stuff in a broken state during development or that they go back and rewrite or squash the sequence before pushing it for review?

[gloryjulio]

> What is "publishing a stack of commits"?

Yes publishing for review.

> Is the expectation that the developer either never commits stuff in a broken state

That's exactly right. In a stack, every commit is built by ci, reviewed by the team. There will be no broken commits