Sometimes you really don't want to look over the commit history of your colleagues. As long as it's a small feature, a single commit is a pretty good option.

Rather than:

implemented X
forgot this
oh, this was not needed
now tests actually pass
oops
fixed this
should be ready

[–] elvith@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's basically my commit history for every repo where I need the pipeline to run to see if everything works.

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Haha same. But that's why you do it in another branch, and then squash-merge.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I like squash merge on small changes, but when larger code changes are there it becomes a huge commit which is difficult to review if you ever have to go back.

[–] firelizzard@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago

If the squash merge is too big to review then that change should have been broken up into multiple separate changes. Regardless whether you’re using pull requests or some equivalent or directly merging feature branches, if “one unit of work” is too much to review when squashed, then your unit of work is too big and needs to be split up. A unit of work should always be reviewable as a whole.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Right... for sure... but then if you don't want to squash, then it doesn't matter you can't squash a merge commit.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

When I do that I always have a Dev branch that I use as the production branch to run the actual calculations.

When I get something working I merge it off, clean up the history a little bit, rebase main onto it and then rebase de onto main.

[–] expr@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago

It's fine if the changes belong in a single commit. Otherwise, an interactive rebase to craft a clean, quality history before merging is much, much better.