Comment by eru
9 days ago
Sure, but you are still supposed to clean things up to make the life of the reviewer easier.
There's an inherent tension between honest history and a polished 'lie' to make the reviewer's life easier.
9 days ago
Sure, but you are still supposed to clean things up to make the life of the reviewer easier.
There's an inherent tension between honest history and a polished 'lie' to make the reviewer's life easier.
The WIP commits I initially recorded also don't necessarily existed as such in my file system and often don't really work completely, so I don't know why the commit after a rebase is any more a lie then the commit before the rebase.
It's a 'lie' in the sense that you are optimising for telling a convenient and easy to understand story for the reviewer where each commit works atomically.
The "honest" historical record of when I decided to use "git commit" while working on something is 100% useless for anyone but me (for me it's 90% useless).
git tracks revisions, not history of file changes.