Re: Branches are Scary

[Phillip Lord]

Random832 <address@hidden> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> 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.
>
> If they get merged, the branch may be deleted but the history
> stays forever, as part of the history graph of the branch it is
> merged into.  I suppose you could squash (and rebase, so the
> parent branch can be fast-forwarded) before merging, so that the
> merge reflects the squashed history rather than the real history
> that existed on the branch (and then never push the squashed
> version to the feature branch).  Is that what you meant?
>
> Seems... fiddly, to me.

It's a fairly normal way of operating. Currently, the squashed version
has to be off the main git, though, because you can't force push. So the
last commit before the merge can't be reviewed by some else, at least
not on the branch that it started off from.

Phil