Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 2
    This answer feels... dogmatic. Rebasing is bad; *never rebase*—false. Rebasing is great for cleaning up a bunch of local wip commits into a nice, clean history, adding substantial detail to commits if its been omitted, getting rid of the unnecessary, etc. It’s like refactoring. It gets a bad rap bc it can be difficult, and bc newcomers try to rebase public history (usually not what you want). *Cherry-picking is bad*—open source disagrees. If your PR contains too much unrelated content, but an individual change has value and is a coherent commit, it might be cherry-picked. … Commented Jun 13, 2019 at 17:43
  • … Agree with you on difficult merges and long-running branches—this can be minimised, however, by periodic merges from master into the feature. Your sprint is too long; *your monolith is too big*—critically examining the dev model might yield some reward in productivity, but this is dogma (even if I agree it will likely help). Overall, I agree with the spirit of the answer (especially the “don’t be concerned about how merge commits look part”), but it seems too couched in absolutes. If you know your tools, you know that each blade and edge has its purpose. Commented Jun 13, 2019 at 17:43
  • 3
    my other dogmatic advice includes "always wear a life jacket", "never turn traction control off", "wear a cycle helmet" etc If your biggest problem is "my comments are too verbose" you are ready to try rebasing out Commented Jun 13, 2019 at 20:14