I totally agree with you that the perfection of git commits should not be prioritized over other more impactful skills, an average knowledge could be enough. Some branche organizations can even mitigate bad commits to pollute the main history of an project.
But the title of the article states that is "A Better Git Flow". It could be an alternative way of work, maybe easier for beginners. But better is quite questionable. I believe that rebase should be the way to go. Many beginners at git sees rebase as a monster, when IMO is just a good tool that requires time to understand.
Also, denying the importance of a good commit message only typing WIP, sounds like a nightmare to me. Checkout this pattern of committing, I really appreciate it.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I totally agree with you that the perfection of git commits should not be prioritized over other more impactful skills, an average knowledge could be enough. Some branche organizations can even mitigate bad commits to pollute the main history of an project.
But the title of the article states that is "A Better Git Flow". It could be an alternative way of work, maybe easier for beginners. But better is quite questionable. I believe that rebase should be the way to go. Many beginners at git sees rebase as a monster, when IMO is just a good tool that requires time to understand.
Also, denying the importance of a good commit message only typing WIP, sounds like a nightmare to me. Checkout this pattern of committing, I really appreciate it.