Same. And even if you were to fuck up, have people never heard of the reflog…?
Every job I’ve worked at it’s been the expectation to regularly rebase your feature branch on main, to squash your commits (and then force push, obv), and for most projects to do rebase-merges of PRs rather than creating merge commits. Even the, uh, less gifted developers never had an issue with this.
I think people just hear the meme about git being hard somewhere and then use that as an excuse to never learn.
Because a commit should be an “indivisible” unit, in the sense that “should this be a separate commit?” equates to “would I ever want to revert just these changes?”.
IDK about your commit histories, but if I’d leave everything in there, there’d be a ton of fixup commits just fixing spelling, satisfying the linter,…
Also, changes requested by reviewers: those fixups almost always belong to the same commit, it makes no sense for them to be separate.
And finally, I guess you do technically give up some granularity, but you gain an immense amount of readability of your commit history.
Huh. Never thought of it that way. I was never bothered by a long commit history at all. Search and filter tools in the git client always get me where I want.
The one issue I have is when there are way too many extant branches and the graph takes up happy half my screen.
But that’s more of a Fork issue than it is a fundamental one. The Fork dev could conceivably find a solution for that.
Either way, I guess I see what you mean. I’m just not that strict about commits. Commits just for the linter aren’t a thing since we have a pre-commit hook for that, and typo-fixing commits… Well, they happen, but they’re typically not numerous enough that I’d find them to be any sort of issue.
As for whether I’d really want to revert a particular change – while I work, yes. Afterwards, I see what you mean; i could probably squash 50 commits into 15 or something. But when I think about the time investment of reviewing every commit and thinking about how they ought to be grouped together before making my merge request… I have a lot of trouble convincing myself it’s a good time investment.
Maybe I’d think otherwise if we had a huge team. We have maybe 10 devs on this project at any given time.
I’m the opposite. I just let git take care of the stupid content. Why mess with the commit graph? Merging locally (instead of squashing) works better with merge requests because the graph clearly shows what changes went where.
I do some branch maintenance on my local branch (rebasing) until there are conflicts, but other than that I don’t see any benefit for messing with commit history.
I rebase and force push daily. I like squashing all my commits, and our main branch moves quickly so I rebase off that often. Zero issues for me.
Same. And even if you were to fuck up, have people never heard of the
reflog…?Every job I’ve worked at it’s been the expectation to regularly rebase your feature branch on main, to squash your commits (and then force push, obv), and for most projects to do rebase-merges of PRs rather than creating merge commits. Even the, uh, less gifted developers never had an issue with this.
I think people just hear the meme about git being hard somewhere and then use that as an excuse to never learn.
Why would you want to squash? Feels weird to willingly give up history granularity…
Because a commit should be an “indivisible” unit, in the sense that “should this be a separate commit?” equates to “would I ever want to revert just these changes?”.
IDK about your commit histories, but if I’d leave everything in there, there’d be a ton of fixup commits just fixing spelling, satisfying the linter,…
Also, changes requested by reviewers: those fixups almost always belong to the same commit, it makes no sense for them to be separate.
And finally, I guess you do technically give up some granularity, but you gain an immense amount of readability of your commit history.
Huh. Never thought of it that way. I was never bothered by a long commit history at all. Search and filter tools in the git client always get me where I want.
The one issue I have is when there are way too many extant branches and the graph takes up happy half my screen.
But that’s more of a Fork issue than it is a fundamental one. The Fork dev could conceivably find a solution for that.
Either way, I guess I see what you mean. I’m just not that strict about commits. Commits just for the linter aren’t a thing since we have a pre-commit hook for that, and typo-fixing commits… Well, they happen, but they’re typically not numerous enough that I’d find them to be any sort of issue.
As for whether I’d really want to revert a particular change – while I work, yes. Afterwards, I see what you mean; i could probably squash 50 commits into 15 or something. But when I think about the time investment of reviewing every commit and thinking about how they ought to be grouped together before making my merge request… I have a lot of trouble convincing myself it’s a good time investment.
Maybe I’d think otherwise if we had a huge team. We have maybe 10 devs on this project at any given time.
Yeah, I hate it when my repo is a chain of merge commits. I want to see actual changes to the code, not branch management history.
I’m the opposite. I just let git take care of the stupid content. Why mess with the commit graph? Merging locally (instead of squashing) works better with merge requests because the graph clearly shows what changes went where.
I do some branch maintenance on my local branch (rebasing) until there are conflicts, but other than that I don’t see any benefit for messing with commit history.