Re: Branches are Scary

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Yuri Khan <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:49:39 +0600
>> Cc: Phillip Lord <address@hidden>, address@hidden, 
>>      Emacs developers <address@hidden>
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> >> > If you still plan substantial cleanup of your commits, just
>> >> > do not push them yet.
>> >>
>> >> Makes it hard to get comments on them, I think.
>> >
>> > How's that?  Can you tell more details how getting comments requires
>> > squashing?
>> 
>> Getting comments doesn’t. Acting on comments sort of does.
>> 
>> Sure, you can push a follow-up commit with a “Post-review fix”
>> subject, but it makes history too detailed. Or you can squash fixes
>> into the commits that introduced the respective issues.
>
> I see, thanks for explaining.

Exactly. My patch to undo.c was a single commit, but was squashed from
about 20, some of which introduced C primitive functions which were
later removed again, and many of which were small changes.

> So I think the too detailed history is not important for these
> branches, since they eventually are going to be deleted.  Therefore,
> my advice is just not to squash there.

Is what I did. But that doesn't allow you to get feedback on the final
completed feature.


> Alternatively, one could push a new branch after each round of comment
> adjudication, and have that new branch have all the changes squashed
> into a single commit.  The previous branch would then be deleted.

Yes, that also works but is long-winded. Alternatively, have feature and
fix branches squashable, while emacs-* and master-* are not so.

Phil