| ▲ | normie3000 4 days ago | |||||||
This bureaucracy has very low overhead. Squash-merge the feature and then the refactor, or the refactor then the feature. Also makes reviewing each quicker. | ||||||||
| ▲ | hamburglar 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Requiring me to do those changes in series as separate merges is the bureaucracy. There is a reason pull requests and merges operate on branches, not just individual commits. It’s like you’re intentionally hamstringing yourself by saying these things must appear as a single commit. Do I want every PR to be a long ugly list of trivial half-done commits with messages like “fix typo” or “partial checkpoint of encabulator functionality”? No. Does everything need to be hammered down into a single wad? Also no. There is a middle ground and people should be trusted to find it, and even to have their own opinion on where it is. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
the feature isn't ready for merge when the refactor happens .... | ||||||||