On 10 Nov 2013, at 13:09 , Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de> wrote: >> Doesn't make that more sense? Or do I oversee something? > > I think the result would be identical, so I don't think the difference > is material. IIRC it can be tricky to rebase master on top of a cleaned up feature branch which is why I’d try to avoid doing that more than once just at the end of the review cycle. Especially when master is in flux. I’m unsure about review then squash, as one could introduce errors there. For the big sys_db patch(es) I had two branches, one with regular development commits and one with a cleaned up history. This is overkill for most branches but probably worth doing on larger things. As a sidenote, I have some time set aside for December to work on our CI setup some more so we get integration builds where feature branches are merged into master and built for testing so we know a branch is clean to merge & ship. Best Jan --
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
