| ▲ | echelon 4 days ago | |
> I like merge commits because they preserve the process of the review. I appreciate that, but I still can't square it with my world view. GitHub or whatever tool you use preserves all the comments and feedback and change history if you ever need to go back and reference it. Such instances are limited, and in my experience it's mainly politics and not technical when this happens. The team's PR discussion itself isn't captured in git, so it's lossy to expect this type of artifact to live in git anyway. It's also much less searchable and less first class than just going back to GitHub to access this. Ultimately, these software development artifacts aren't relevant to the production state of the software you're deploying. It feels muddled to put an incomplete version of it into your tree when the better source of truth lives outside. | ||
| ▲ | nixpulvis 4 days ago | parent [-] | |
Usually the merge commit is what has the link to the PR/MR. So it's the best way to actually find it. > Ultimately, these software development artifacts aren't relevant to the production state of the software you're deploying. It feels muddled to put an incomplete version of it into your tree when the better source of truth lives outside. You could make the same claim about the entire history. Git is a development tool, production just needs a working cut of the source. | ||