I'm in the other camp.
The way I see it, a squash of history or massive patch file loses history. It
loses details about the thought process of the implementer. It masks mistakes
and obscures motivations. It also masks decisions made in the merge operation,
further hiding potential problems.
On Apr 02, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
The way I see it, a squash of history or massive patch file loses history. It
loses details about the thought process of the implementer. It masks mistakes
and obscures motivations. It also masks decisions made in the merge
operation, further
On 04/02/2015 07:38 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 05:05, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote:
We'll have the 2.7.10 release in the coming months. This will be the first
release with a two digit subminor version number, so please could we prepare
for
that early? Feature tests
Where I come from we always squash. More detailed history is preserved in
the code review tool (which keeps a snapshot every time you bounce it back
to the reviewer). Looking at my own sub-commits when I'm working on a
complex feature or bug fix, they are often checkpoints with no particular
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:31:08 -0700, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Where I come from we always squash. More detailed history is preserved in
the code review tool (which keeps a snapshot every time you bounce it back
to the reviewer). Looking at my own sub-commits when I'm working on a
