|
|
|
|
|
|
by skydhash
617 days ago
|
|
|
> Having to “project manage” each and every commit if you want a useful and fine-grained (but not micromanaged) version control history is impractical. You're misunderstand me there. I'm talking about the main branch's commits, on the main repository, not every branch and every commits, and not the local repos. And it's not dogmatic, just very nice to have. If you want a hotfix, it's very easy to create a new branch, commit the fix, push it, create a PR, and squash merge it. Unless you like to edit "main" directly on a collaborative project. Or you can then instruct everyone how to cleanup their commits and make sure that each one is atomic. And you can merge your usual way. I have no dog in this fight. It's just that the above is easier to do. It's pretty much the same result. |
|
|
No I don’t. I’m also talking about the commits that go into the main branch. The “permanent history”, not all the commits that happen on feature branches.
> And it's not dogmatic, just very nice to have.
A squash-only policy is by definition dogmatic. That’s the only thing that I’ve argued against here—a policy. Having the freedom to do it or not is totally different.
> Or you can then instruct everyone how to cleanup their commits and make sure that each one is atomic. And you can merge your usual way. I have no dog in this fight. It's just that the above is easier to do. It's pretty much the same result.
No. OR you can let people do what they want. Let them squash if they want.
If squashing is such a win they can do that. No instructions necessary.