Sometimes you really don’t want to look over the commit history of your colleagues. As long as it’s a small feature, a single commit is a pretty good option.
I like squash merge on small changes, but when larger code changes are there it becomes a huge commit which is difficult to review if you ever have to go back.
If the squash merge is too big to review then that change should have been broken up into multiple separate changes. Regardless whether you’re using pull requests or some equivalent or directly merging feature branches, if “one unit of work” is too much to review when squashed, then your unit of work is too big and needs to be split up. A unit of work should always be reviewable as a whole.
It’s fine if the changes belong in a single commit. Otherwise, an interactive rebase to craft a clean, quality history before merging is much, much better.
Sometimes you really don’t want to look over the commit history of your colleagues. As long as it’s a small feature, a single commit is a pretty good option.
Rather than:
That’s basically my commit history for every repo where I need the pipeline to run to see if everything works.
Haha same. But that’s why you do it in another branch, and then squash-merge.
I like squash merge on small changes, but when larger code changes are there it becomes a huge commit which is difficult to review if you ever have to go back.
If the squash merge is too big to review then that change should have been broken up into multiple separate changes. Regardless whether you’re using pull requests or some equivalent or directly merging feature branches, if “one unit of work” is too much to review when squashed, then your unit of work is too big and needs to be split up. A unit of work should always be reviewable as a whole.
Right… for sure… but then if you don’t want to squash, then it doesn’t matter you can’t squash a merge commit.
When I do that I always have a Dev branch that I use as the production branch to run the actual calculations.
When I get something working I merge it off, clean up the history a little bit, rebase main onto it and then rebase de onto main.
It’s fine if the changes belong in a single commit. Otherwise, an interactive rebase to craft a clean, quality history before merging is much, much better.