5 ms·
Yeah, I think over use of GitHub, which seems to encourage squash-merging, has led to this where a lot of people I’ve seen treat a PR as essentially one commit
by bavent 11mo ago
Yeah, I think over use of GitHub, which seems to encourage squash-merging, has led to this where a lot of people I’ve seen treat a PR as essentially one commit - because it ends up being one in the end.
If you keep your PRs small I guess the end result is the same, but even then I like things in individual commits for ease of review.
- danielbln 11mo agoI want to see detailed atomic commits during PR review, and once it's reviewed I'm happy to have it squashed. If the PR produces so much code/changes that main branch needs detailed atomic commits for future reference, then the PR was too large to begin with, imo.
- bavent 11mo agoI do agree that this is a good compromise. For me, if I do a git blame and eventually can find the PR that led to change, if it has nice clean commits, that’s good enough.
- focom 11mo ago> If you keep your PRs small Its not a if. it's necessary for the sake of people reviewing your code. Unless you work alone on your pet project and always push to master you never work alone.
- bavent 11mo agoRight, small PRs are great. And they are even better with a nice commit history for me to follow. One does not exclude the other.