Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You're not saying anything new as far as I can tell. Your grandparent already said what you said. I only disputed the "this costs next to nothing" part, which you don't seem to comment on.



I was commenting exactly on that. You think having every commit build, at the cost of destroying history, is gaining something.

I think representing history correctly is best, and agree that “squashing buys you next to nothing” other than visually pleasant output. Clearer?

My favorite approach is rebase + non-ff merge. Best of both worlds.


No. They think having every commit build is gaining something.

You think the disadvantage (destroying history) is more important, but you can't say that it "buys you nothing".




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: