You are right. It could be useful to fix old commits (already pushed) but it could encourage bad practices. Minor changes should be avoided, it is an exception, not a rule.
Thank you Fredrik. On 03/10/2015 15:12, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:38:46PM -0300, Felipe Micaroni Lalli wrote: >> A minor change (also called "cosmetic") usually is a typo fix, doc >> improvement, a little code refactoring that don't change the behavior etc. >> >> In Wikipedia we can mark an edition as "minor". >> >> It would be nice to have an argument like "--minor" in git-commit to >> mark the commit as minor. Also, filter in git-log (like --hide-minor) to >> hide the minor changes. The git-log could be optimized to show minor >> commits more discreetly. > > I can see your problem and implement your suggest is a solution that > would work. However since this is a common problem, git already has a > solution, that is the interactive rebase. > > You can read a discussion about when to use merge and rebase here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39091.html > > This work method make the "minor" commits to go away. There shouldn't be > any minor, or "fixup" commits in your history (of course there's > exception). > > Minor things should be caught in your code review process and then > fixed, rebased and the merged again. > > Or do I miss a usecase here? >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
