Why use squash merging? #43
-
imo in the cases ive seen in this repo it's caused me more pain than it helps 🤷 also its not the default and u know I'm a default lover but there might be a legit reason? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
I prefer to avoid adding commits that get undone or are partial. It's just kind of extra noise in the commit history. For example, commits that exist just for formatting, or 2 or more commits that could be described as just one. Alternative to squash merges, I could ask you to interactively rebase your branch, but that could cause even more pain to you 😆 I don't always squash-merge, and try to take things on a case-by-case basis. But the majority of PRs can be summarized as one change, so I'll squash-merge those. If you're curious, I wrote some of my opinions on git history here: https://spenserblack.github.io/tutorials/git |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I prefer to avoid adding commits that get undone or are partial. It's just kind of extra noise in the commit history. For example, commits that exist just for formatting, or 2 or more commits that could be described as just one. Alternative to squash merges, I could ask you to interactively rebase your branch, but that could cause even more pain to you 😆
I don't always squash-merge, and try to take things on a case-by-case basis. But the majority of PRs can be summarized as one change, so I'll squash-merge those.
If you're curious, I wrote some of my opinions on git history here: https://spenserblack.github.io/tutorials/git