Sure, why not having a civilized conversation by starting off with implying that the other guy has no idea what they are talking about and "need training". Way to go.
I've heard the arguments - all of them, plenty of times, over and over again. I am fully aware of the advantages. And I still think that it's a bad idea. You may call it a "clean history" - I say this is not how it happened. The result of a rebase is an arbitrarily twisted and warped version of the actual project history. If the sole reason for a rebase is a straight line in gitk, then count me out. Sticking to gitflow with merge commits gives you a history that actually deserves the name because it is based on facts. It is a perfectly fine workflow, even juniors get it quickly. I see no reason to add more complexity to that. And rebase is not without caveats.
Sorry if my tone was condescendent, I was just feeling that if your initial harsh rejection of rebase was because it was synonymous of force pushes and lack of proper GUI, it was pretty misguided.
If we start talking about the real stuff, then I’m not a gitk follower either. And I merge on trunks (no-ff), but after a rebase. Actually after regular rebases of living branches between their emergence and their merge. No rebase of shared branches (clone then rebase if the base is too old after a proper synchronization point), no push force either, publication of a private branch after rebase and before merge —no-ff to have the commits details on hand. Gitflow is ok to me, just feature/private branches handling feels better with rebases than with merges at least to me.
Sorry again if you took it personally, but you started 😝 by attacking cruelly my lovely rebase.
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.
Sure, why not having a civilized conversation by starting off with implying that the other guy has no idea what they are talking about and "need training". Way to go.
I've heard the arguments - all of them, plenty of times, over and over again. I am fully aware of the advantages. And I still think that it's a bad idea. You may call it a "clean history" - I say this is not how it happened. The result of a rebase is an arbitrarily twisted and warped version of the actual project history. If the sole reason for a rebase is a straight line in gitk, then count me out. Sticking to gitflow with merge commits gives you a history that actually deserves the name because it is based on facts. It is a perfectly fine workflow, even juniors get it quickly. I see no reason to add more complexity to that. And rebase is not without caveats.
Sorry if my tone was condescendent, I was just feeling that if your initial harsh rejection of rebase was because it was synonymous of force pushes and lack of proper GUI, it was pretty misguided.
If we start talking about the real stuff, then I’m not a gitk follower either. And I merge on trunks (no-ff), but after a rebase. Actually after regular rebases of living branches between their emergence and their merge. No rebase of shared branches (clone then rebase if the base is too old after a proper synchronization point), no push force either, publication of a private branch after rebase and before merge —no-ff to have the commits details on hand. Gitflow is ok to me, just feature/private branches handling feels better with rebases than with merges at least to me.
Sorry again if you took it personally, but you started 😝 by attacking cruelly my lovely rebase.