IAm_A_Complete_Idiot

@IAm_A_Complete_Idiot@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

IAm_A_Complete_Idiot,

How much of that is what GitHub encourages and how much of that is what Users prefer? Plenty of users seem to enjoy phabricator / Gerrit for code review in practice precisely because of their workflows.

IAm_A_Complete_Idiot, (edited )

Yeah, but phabricator and Gerrit are entirely separate workflows from GitHub, and a lot of people prefer that workflow because it leads to encouraging better histories and reviews. It helps you in getting rid of the “fixed typos” type of commits, while still letting you make larger PRs.

GitHub obviously does let you keep a clean git history, but the code review workflow in GH just doesn’t encourage reviewing commits.

IAm_A_Complete_Idiot, (edited )

Right, but squashed commits don’t scale for large PRs. You could argue that large PRs should be avoided, but sometimes they make sense. And in the case where you do have a large PR, a commit by commit review makes a lot of sense to keep your history clean.

Large features that are relatively isolated from the rest of the codebase make perfect sense to do in a different branch before merging it in - you don’t merge in half broken code. Squashing a large feature into one commit gets rid of any useful history that branch may have had.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #