[dbalatero]

Yep, IMO this is always the best of the 3 strategies.

The PR is the unit of work, people get too hung up on the PR's individual commits.

Worst: rebase and merge - you end up with your coworker's broken WIP commits all over master, and have a terrible git revert story

OK: merge commit - you can revert, but there is a less intuitive `-m 1` flag (IIRC?) you have to pass into revert, and IMO you rarely need the intermediate history.

Best: squash & merge - you get one single commit representing the unit of work merging in, git revert is dead easy

Also setting the commit message in main to the `{title} (#{prNum})\n\n{prDescription}` format preserves all the good context from your PR and lets you get back to it if you need.

[keybored]

Three options? The best alternative to squash-merge is to freely rebase before you merge. Or for that matter squash if you just end up with one commit (because rebase subsumes squash).

1. You get rid of WIP commits, typo fix commits, all kinds of transient changes (for review and so on)

2. You keep the substantive ones

3. All changes are logically separated

I don’t see where you cover this option.

> Also setting the commit message in main to the `{title} (#{prNum})\n\n{prDescription}` format preserves all the good context from your PR and lets you get back to it if you need.

Again. It is ironic that people are so comfortable with dumping the history in a webapp when you are working with a version control system.

I am fine with a lot of the history being on GitHub or whatever other webapp. The review history, that is. But I’m not comfortable with leaving the history of the pre-squashed commits on GitHub if those pre-squashed commits were useful for the long-term history.

[kccqzy]

If the code author deems the pre-squashed commits useful, they would've split their PR into multiple PRs. I personally do this all the time: each PR has only one commit, but PRs can depend on each other.

And if the PR author deems their commits insignificant, they can feel free to make one PR and they squash & merge.

[keybored]

This is like a game of tag. We move on from the squash policy to a different weird requirement.

Vanilla tools make PRs have a certain overhead. Dependent branches and flipping from the terminal or IDE to the webapp and so on.

And these vanilla tools are often a team requirement. But with git(1) you can work around all that overhead.

Am I gonna stop weirdly insisting on using the version control system itself for version control instead of latching onto whatever passes for “PR”? Apparently not.

[kccqzy]

Only people who aren't good at git will think dependent branches are overhead.

The version control system itself doesn't have enough features for collaborative coding. It doesn't have all the discussions and messages exchanged between authors and reviewers. The main task here isn't version control itself but a collaborative social process. The kernel has LKML. The rest of us mostly use GitHub. By making one large PR with distinct commits you force that discussion to be intertwined together. That's why I continue to believe the best way is to make multiple smaller PRs each with one commit (or multiple commits that are squashed upon merge).

[keybored]

> Only people who aren't good at git will think dependent branches are overhead.

[redacted]

You have to create branch names and keep them in synch. with `git rebase --update-refs` constantly. But worst of all: vanilla forge PRs don’t support it. So you have to thread these dependencies manually instead. What magic eliminates this overhead?

[kccqzy]

I really don't understand you here. Yes you do need to run `git rebase --update-refs` constantly but you want your commits to be meaningful enough to be preserved, you are doing the rebase anyways. If you don't want to type `--update-refs` put it in your .gitconfig. And what do you mean vanilla forge PRs don't support it? If it's GitHub you simply tell your reviewer to look at the commit diff view not the PR diff view.

[OskarS]

I think "every PR should be a single commit when merged" is a bit too dogmatic. If the PR is logically split up into bits of work that conceptually separate and that compile/run independently, then it makes sense to have those as separate commits. You might argue that those should then be separate PRs, but that's going a bit too far, I think. You can still revert it, it's just have to revert the individual commits and squash the revert commits.

IMHO the guideline should be "clean up your branch and rebase it before merging. Usually that means a single commit, but it can be multiple if that makes more sense to <future person> reading the history".

[w0m]

> IMHO the guideline should be "clean up your branch and rebase it before merging

In my experience, engineers tend to fall into 1 of 2 camps: 'Deep' Git knowledge who routinely dig through reflog and keep backup branches, commit early/often and autosquash logcal chunks until their PRs tell a Story through their commit history. The other side pretends git is p4; and has no concept of fetch vs pull vs rebase. A base assumption that branches are expensive and to be avoided.

I'd like to think probably fall in the middle, but nearly every engineer I've worked with falls on those edges based on the number of DMs i get asking for help after after the rote `git stash; git pull; git stash pop` throws conflict.

[skydhash]

My local git copy can be a mess of branch and commits. But I want the main copy to have a clean history that embodies the project. Which means having only the main branch and a few others that represent main activities in flight, each changes can be tied to a ticket, a task, and people, and easily manage releases and reversions.

[keybored]

What’s that got to do with this squash sub-topic?

[keybored]

Individuals who don’t care and prefer squash can still use the squash option for their own work. The option is there in the $forge PR menu. No git(1) required.

The problem with the squash strategy is when it is used as a team-wide policy. Like it was described here. I can’t understand why we have to collectively limit ourselves like that.

[zomgwat]

I don’t see it as too dogmatic. I see it as taking the ambiguity out of the decision whether to squash or not. Just always squash into master. There are plenty of options to make creating PRs more lightweight.

Another nice thing with squashing is that merges into master always look the same regardless of individual engineer workflows.

[keybored]

Any dogmatic decision could be described as taking the ambiguity out of decisions.

[zomgwat]

Sure. And that’s positive in the context of this thread.

[keybored]

We’ve discussed the downsides of having such a policy in this subthread.

I want to have the choice to do a true merge or some other strategy. It’s a downside for me personally. Not having a choice doesn’t help me since it’s a meaningful choice in my book.

As a policy. I leave this decision for others. People who prefer can squash-merge all the time if they want to.

[skydhash]

That’s when you introduce feature branch if the work is going to take days or months to get right. That feature branch will be the target of these PRs. Then you either merge (if you want the history) or squash if you don’t

[keybored]

Everyone knows what a feature branch is. Even people who choose to not use them.

[w0m]

I generally dislike being told how to handle my commit history as 'i can do it better' - but this is really true.

Commit history on a (larger?) PR tends to be most useful during the PR itself; I tend try and make my commits tell a story I can walk people through (on the CLI during a call) moreso than anything that will be useful in 6mo/year.

I've been convinced on Squash/Merge. If the PR needs more granular commits; maybe it should be 2 independent PRs.

[keybored]

I do want something that will be intelligible for as many years from now as possible.

We constantly use that on the OSS project I’m occasionally involved with. “Well why is it like that…” and the project has enforced a good history so this can often be answered.

And that’s the primary benefit of Git. With some discipline the history becomes legible.

On the other hand it doesn’t give you much out of the box for code review. Unless the code review you use is covered by the email tooling.

[kccqzy]

Enforcing a good history can be as simple as writing a long commit message explaining things in detail. A good mental model is to default to a two-section message, explaining why a change is made and how it is made. And then when you squash & merge, include all of the detailed commit messages. Fun fact: at a previous company I'm in the top 1% for writing long commit messages.

[keybored]

Your commit message can be as long as it wants. If you squash twelve distinct changes you’re not going to see what part of the message corresponds to what change. Unless you invent some markup which points at the lines in the diff (but the diffs are dynamic so not something static you can count on). But at that point you’re doing so much work that you might as well use a regular merge.

[kccqzy]

Please if you have twelve distinct changes you are making twelve separate PRs.

[keybored]

Game of tag indeed.[1]

With Git you can work in, well, at least twelve different ways. But people discuss workflows with some built-in assumption that of course everyone else is using it like they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839378