Data is not necessarily information. If three commits to fix a typoe make you happy, so be it. I don't need and I do not want this kind of history and information.
Re:Comparing Git Workflows
by forrestthewoods on Thursday May 26, 2016 @05:24PM
(#11781756)
In throwing away three commits to fix a typo you also throw away 10 commits that show how the parameters in a function declaration changed over time. You may need that information. And you're choosing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Re:Comparing Git Workflows
by ChristianGeek on Thursday May 26, 2016 @09:27PM
(#11783224)
Doesn't an undeleted feature branch essentially offer the same functionality as "expand squash?"
The obvious answer is to squash commits, but keep the information. Intermediate commits aren't needed very often. But they can be exceptionally useful when they are needed. Especially if the commits were from an employee who is no longer working at your private company.
Git still needs a p4 timelapse view tool. It's wonderful. All that tool needs is a little check box called "expand squash". That's the best of both worlds. Everyone gets what they want. But that tool and checkbox don't exist. So given the choice between squashed vs unsquashed I'll take unsquashed 100% of the time. At a private company that is. Open source projects, especially large projects, might choose differently.