• Atemu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    you also lose the merge-commits, which convey no valuable information of their own.

    In a feature branch workflow, I do not agree. The merge commit denotes the end of a feature branch. Without it, you lose all notion of what was and wasn’t part of the same feature branch.

    • someonesmall@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Agreed, you also lose the info about the resolved merge conflicts during the merge (which have been crucial a few times to me).

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, with a rebase workflow, there should be no merge conflicts during the final merge. That should always be a fast-forward.

        Of course, that’s because you shift those merge conflicts to occur earlier, during your regular rebases. But since they’re much smaller conflicts at a time, they’re much easier to resolve correctly, and will often be auto-resolved by Git.

        You’re still right, that if you’ve got a long-running feature branch, there’s a chance that a conflict resolution broke a feature that got developed early on, and that does become invisible. On the flip-side, though, the person working on that feature-branch has a chance to catch that breakage early on, before the merge happens.