@languagehacker oh fun! I think the real answer is most people using a rebase workflow probably want it for a linear history
-
-
Replying to @languagehacker
@languagehacker yeah, people doing that mostly use a standard merge workflow and rebase locally immediately prior to merging1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @languagehacker
@languagehacker we have a highly active origin :) Our general workflow is pull master, rebase your feature branch, send PR, squash merge1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bascule
@bascule Interesting. We're trying to implement a take on http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ …. We want the clear history and atomicity merge commits offer.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @languagehacker
@languagehacker sounds like you want a quick way to rollback a feature? The easiest way to do that is to squash :|2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @languagehacker
@languagehacker just used bisect the other day. it's a lifesaver when you need it1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@languagehacker yeah, it's great when you hit something totally counterintuitive then work your way back to the problem
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.