Hacker News Reader

Comment by ricardobeat | Hacker News Reader

I wish more people were comfortable with rebasing. This is my favorite workflow too, but I've never been in a team where we're able to do that as a default, unfortunately it requires an understanding of git that's deeper than the average dev deems worth.

View on HN

But you don't really need rebasing in this case, right? Merging the main branch into the feature branch would work too, and it's not too difficult.

Rebasing is a necessity for this workflow.

If every branch has multiple “merge master into …” commits, and they are also merged back into master (without rebasing or squashing) you end up with a huge mess. Reverting anything becomes impossible, and mistakes when merging almost irrecoverable.

Is that true? I've never had any problem reverting with the workflow described and I find fixing merge issues to also be trivial. Okay, not trivial, but no harder because I had merged the master onto the feature many times.

Why would either of those be harder?

No it isn't, full stop.

What you mean to say is you don't like the way the history looks. That's fine, it's a valid criticism. Calling it a necessity is over the line.

Not necessarily. A lot of developers despise the idea of using git GUIs, but e.g. GitKraken makes rebases - even with conflicts - a breeze.

Plus you get to say out loud “let’s get cracking’” every time you open it up. Just me?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com