re: Git workflow and my new love of Git alias VIEW POST

VIEW FULL DISCUSSION
 

You can display version history on github in Insights/Network.
github graph

tl;dr
I don't agree with fast-forward merges aka rebase with no merge. For me, a branch is a separated idea and master is a collection of references to those ideas.

long
I understand that a flat (rebase) git-flow with history manipulation makes sense for usage with git in bash where the commit history is displayed in a linear fashion. However, I don't agree that this approach is better, compared to a two dimensional (merge) git-flow in a visual git. Also changing the Feature's commit history even slightly makes it difficult, for a reviewer, to understand your mind flow and reasoning.
I was on a project, where everyone squashed their branches to a single commit before rebasing onto a master and I can tell you, you don't want to review this.

rebase flow

Compare with this
(BTW, you can always use --first-parent to hide branch commits.)
merge flow

An excellent quote from etcwilde

Another issue is fast-foward merging. Many people are afraid of merge commits, and without a good visualization merge commits just complicate things, so they do fast-forward merges. Yeah, it gets rid of the merge commits, but since branches are usually separate ideas, the merge commits are like the separation of paragraphs. Yeah, you could write a book without paragraphs, but it will suck. Don't do that to your repositories, or they will suck too.

 

Excellent points! I am actually in favor of merge commits, but my teams current workflow does not use them. It's something that I would like to try and get added into our git workflow, but we'll see ¯_(ツ)_/¯

The quote from etcwilde is a great example! Also thanks for pointing out where the visualization was at on gitub, just kinda wish it had a great commit range on it.

code of conduct - report abuse