Currently, I am holding the position of Senior Software Engineer, but I prefer to consider myself a full-stack engineer.
My passions are quality and efficiency. Agile fan and XP practitioner.
I really liked the way you explained the way squash is working. But it seems that the main argument against squashing is that it just drops the history?
That's fair, but it doesn't mean squash is bad, it means one just need to know the cost, correct?
Yes. But most people argue that it "cleans up" history, because they are unaware that you can easily hide the right parent when printing out logs, for example. I find losing history a very high cost to avoid using a pretty-print flag.
Currently, I am holding the position of Senior Software Engineer, but I prefer to consider myself a full-stack engineer.
My passions are quality and efficiency. Agile fan and XP practitioner.
That's a very good argument. The other perspective to consider is that more and more people don't use git from command line so they see whatever they git tool shows, which may be unable to do pretty-print in a firts place
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I really liked the way you explained the way squash is working. But it seems that the main argument against squashing is that it just drops the history?
That's fair, but it doesn't mean squash is bad, it means one just need to know the cost, correct?
Yes. But most people argue that it "cleans up" history, because they are unaware that you can easily hide the right parent when printing out logs, for example. I find losing history a very high cost to avoid using a pretty-print flag.
That's a very good argument. The other perspective to consider is that more and more people don't use git from command line so they see whatever they git tool shows, which may be unable to do pretty-print in a firts place