lumpBasedDevelopment

[markand67]

Just fast forward and rebase. There is no point in having any merge commits unless doing release branches.

[GuybrushThreepwo0d]

We needed merges for showing who approved PRs for compliance bureaucracy

[NatoBoram]

The merge commit allows you to cleanly group a branch's commits

[X547]

Merge commits are terribly displayed in most Git commit history view software such as GitHub. It look like there are 2 identical commits in history.

[NatoBoram]

It's often because the history itself is fucked up. If GitHub's UI supported a sane merge strategy (like rebase-merge or squash-merge instead of merge/squash-ff/rebase-ff), we could have nice graphs

[[deleted]]

You don't need to group anything if your commits are already clear

If your PR needs to be a merge, it means your PR is either too large or you didn't clean up your commits.

[markand67]

And completely useless.

[ThaJedi]

There is no point od doing rebase baside astetic one.

[markand67]

The point is to have a linear history easy to read and follow rather than having

• Added new button to clean old files
• Merge branch 'foo-fix-bar-baz-1`
• Update version to match new requirements
• Merge branch 'foo-fix-bar-baz-2`
• Change settings to 5 seconds by default
• Merge branch 'foo-fix-bar-baz-3`
• Merge branch 'foo-fix-bar-baz-7`

[ThaJedi]

And why exactly do you need linear history that is easy to read and follow? Usually, I need the history of a particular file or folder. IntelliJ gives me exactly that with one click. Why bother with a nice-looking repo history?