To me commit messages provide archeology for future devs. Providing a concise narrative is more important than "wip: hope this fixes ci!"
-
-
Replying to @Keithamus @wycats and
Totally. Promoting good commit messages is way more valuable than arguing about merge vs rebase.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @polotek @Keithamus and
I always hope knowing the value of good commit history should be a motivator for more intentional commit discipline in the first place.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @polotek @Keithamus and
I just clean things up and add clarity at a slightly coarser granularity. A few days vs a day.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @Keithamus and
For what it's worth, that's okay in my book too. As long as you're okay leaving all of that ugliness in there for ppl to see.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @polotek @Keithamus and
Why's a day's worth of ugliness ok to clean up but two days has to stay?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @Keithamus and
Sorry, I probably miscommunicated. You can curate all you want inside a branch you fully own.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ahhhh. So when do you disagree with it? Rebasing master branch? I think we can all agree that's a bad idea.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Keithamus @wycats and
Happens all the time. And the more you extoll the virtues of making history look the way we want, you ensure it'll happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @polotek @Keithamus and
To answer your question, once you push to a shared branch, that history is locked. That includes shared feature branches. Not just master.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Once I'm collaborating with another developer I pretty much follow this rule.
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.