Hacker News Reader

> It's different from rebasing to squash many commits into one.

What is different?

My point is, if you don't write meaningful commit messages for some commits, you probably don't need any commit messages for those commits at all. It reduces noise for people who read your `git log`. If you make a commit and then immediately revert it, instead of "foo", it's better to write at least "tried ...; didn't work".

View on HN

The posted article is about whether to squash commits or not. The posted article is comparing the view of the commit as ultimate arbiter of feature history or the commit cluster (aka Pull Request) as ultimate arbiter of feature history. Putting details below the fold on a single feature commit makes them 99% invisible.

The best solution, which the posted article suggests, is for git to natively support commit clusters. So that you can have just feature information and also meta information that isn't 99% invisible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com