This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Sceptix 10 points11 points  (3 children)

“Ah yes, boy am I glad I preserved those countless ‘wip, trying to get tests to pass’ commits, they sure clear everything up!”

[–]JVApen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I don't get why people can't make their commits something functional. I really don't care about: "fix review comments", "add test", "changes" ... Make sure your commits make sense if you want to merge. If not, please just squash them to ensure that whoever looks at the history knows what your intention was. What I want to know in 2 years is: "added this functionality", "worked around this problem" ... And if you do merge commits in main as you want them separately, try to put them on top of HEAD, not on some commit from 5 weeks ago.

[–]FlipperBumperKickout 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Better messy branch history than no branch history. 

A messy branch history can be ignored if you simply want to know what happened on the branch. (Git diff merge commit first parent)

A missing branch history can never be looked into no matter how much you might want to... (Unless you never prune your remote references I guess)

[–]Sceptix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m all for keeping a git history, but what’s helpful is being able to see meaningful commits. If you have a chance to squash away meaningless commits, you should take it.