Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I can distill my thoughts down to this:

The time it takes to carefully rebase a branch onto another, and to compress commits for a feature into one, is still much longer than the time it takes for my eyes to pass over so-called "empty" merge commits.

If I want to look at when a feature entered a branch, I can look at its merge commit. And the feature branches are there to show how a feature was built; bugs could be the result of a design decision that happened in one of the midway commits.

I looked at OP's example pic in the blog, and I read all of his words, but I wasn't sold. His picture looks like a normal git history to me. It requires almost no effort to find what I'm looking for.

And that's not even touching his rage against the idea of a canonical release branch (master). But that's for another day.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: