Hacker News Reader

Comment by bastardoperator | Hacker News Reader

Which is the entire point of it. Why should I look at ten commits when I can look at one and get the same exact data? Why should I pollute my production history for what a is likely a bunch of debugging commits? The branch is a scratchpad, you should feel empowered within your own branch, rebase allows you to be lazy in the development cycle while presenting a nice clean set of changes at the end of it.

View on HN

Yes! When you are deep in the code, your brain operates in a non-linear way. You try a solution, it breaks a test. You patch the test. You realize the variable name is wrong. You fix a typo.

Without Squash, the main branch history becomes a timeline of your mental struggle.

With Squash, the main branch becomes a catalog of features delivered.

No body needs to take a trip on the struggle bus with me...

You can split your work in multiple commits and at the same time drop/squash debugging or wip changes. The result allows you to go into much better detail than a PR description.

>Why should I look at ten commits when I can look at one and get the same exact data?

For the same reason you have your production history instead of zip file with code)

>while presenting a nice clean set of changes at the end of it

The set, yes, not a single squashed commit.

>The branch is a scratchpad, you should feel empowered within your own branch, rebase

Yes, amend, fixup, rebase. Make it a nice set of small commits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com