Hacker News Reader

I would downvote purely on the grounds that you can legitimately rebase master the same as any other branch - it's rebasing published history that screws up, not rebasing commits that are on a specific branch.

There's nothing wrong with, say, creating three local commits on master, "rebase -i"ing them into one commit, and then pushing.

The author has completely missed the point of what can and can't be rebased.

View on HN

I think the intended point was that you should always work on feature branches, never on master, rebase your feature branch work against upstream/master which is the one true published history and thus never rebase master.

In this workflow there is no pushing to master because you never work on master. So there is no reason to ever rebase master. Master is always assumed to be published history.

Exactly. Thanks ^^

I'm assuming that you have someone else apart from you sync'ing with your master. But even if you know that nobody else uses your software (so far), I would still recommend, as a good practice, to stay away from rebasing master.

Work on feature branches, rebase them, and merge them. Once in master, you don't rebase anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com