| ▲ | matijsvzuijlen 12 hours ago | |
What made you decide to squash when merging instead of leaving the commits in the history so you can always bisect? | ||
| ▲ | quesera 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Not GP, but we do the same. Branches become the atomic unit of bisection in master, but the need is extremely rare. I think because we have good tests. We also keep merged branches around. This has never happened, but if we needed to bisect at the merged-branch level, we could do that. I know squash-merge isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I find it to be simpler and clearer for the 99+% case, and only slightly less convenient for the remainder. | ||
| ▲ | dotancohen 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The range reason your history textbook is not infinitely long. The longer something is, the less digestible. When we need more granularity, it's there in the branches. | ||