On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's not good either. Why would I want to look at a DAG when
the serie of event is strictly linear to begin with ?
Not sure what you mean here. The way it's presented is not a DAG.
Yes, that's why rebasing makes thing clearer. Nobody care what
the master commit was when the work was started.
Sure, I'm not against rebasing. It's the squashing that's
problematic.
"Our source control is completely broken, but that's not a
problem because we developed 3rd party tools to work around the
brokenness"
That's fallacious.
While I agree with you that things like bisecting are broken in
D, I don't see it as a reason to screw things up even more. I'm
not a big fan of "it's already broken, so we can break it even
more". This should, and can, be fixed.
https://danluu.com/monorepo/
Incidentally, I got a company contacting me last week willing
to pay me good money to help them transition toward these kind
of workflow.
I don't disagree with you, but this is a different discussion
that's orthogonal to this one.
Then it should have been 2 PR or more to begin with. Splitting
PR in smaller ones is a good practice in general,
You are changing the subject. I'll reply in another post with a
different subject.
