15 karma · joined September 19, 2013
Glad to know operator response times have exponentially increased!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/us...
Because we have rebase, there is not as much need for discipline when creating commits, because you can change change them later.
> and part desire to hide work that is incomplete or "imperfect"
When I do any kind of work, I usually submit the finished work to whomever needs it. It's not hiding, it's just giving people what they need.
When I use `rebase -i` in my workflow to alter my commit history, it's almost always for the purpose of helping code review. I want my commits to lead a reviewer logically down a path that helps them understand the role each change makes in a push request.
What you've described -- committing often and later combining commits together into cohesive units that don't break tests -- is a lot like how I work. I use `git rebase -i` for this; never `git merge --squash`.
Develop on a branch, yes; rebase the branch instead of merging in master, sure. But why delete the history by squashing, when a merge into the mainline can look just as neat without requiring history to be deleted.
The argument that I've heard is "so that I don't have to all of that detailed history." But that is a display problem, not an argument for removing history.
"Doe, John", 1234 Pine St, Springfield
That would be imported as 4 fields, not 3.