|
|
|
|
|
|
by kreetx
609 days ago
|
|
|
Not OP, but: > How do you enforce it? I don't think you can. You just rely on the the developer to only create compiling commits (if possible). Also, code review might catch these. > Because with rebase you're much more likely to get a long chain of commits that don't compile After a rebase you try to compile the code and it will fail due to the renamed function. Then you fix the function name and move this change into the commit that started using this function (perhaps employing a fixup commit). Now, all following commits compile because they have the fixed call site, and previous commits compile as well because the call wasn't there yet. |
|
|
Right. But there's a natural incentive to create compiling commits as you work (because when you're working on something you at least occasionally compile your code and run tests). There's much less incentive to go back and check after a rebase.
> Also, code review might catch these.
Pretty unlikely - usually people just review the overall diff, not the individual commits, and even if they do, the commits make sense visually whether they compile or not.
> Then you fix the function name and move this change into the commit that started using this function (perhaps employing a fixup commit).
If you are disciplined enough to notice and do this right, sure. But it's extra work that eats into you discipline budget.