On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> On 2016-07-19, at 11:02 PM, Charles Manning wrote:
>
> Squashing makes sense if you have a really ratty bunch of checkins with
> work-in-progress checkins etc., but unless it's a trivial topic branch I
> would still typically make the final set
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:08:50 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
> > Lets say I've got a topic branch. I've made a bunch of commits. It's
> > messy. But it's done.
>
> > What do I do with the leftover? I thought I could tag it as
> > "closed", but I can't use the same tag more than
Michael writes:
> Lets say I've got a topic branch. I've made a bunch of commits. It's
> messy. But it's done.
> What do I do with the leftover? I thought I could tag it as "closed",
> but I can't use the same tag more than once. What's the best way to
> mark it as done, or should I just delete t
On 2016-07-19, at 11:02 PM, Charles Manning wrote:
> Squashing makes sense if you have a really ratty bunch of checkins with
> work-in-progress checkins etc., but unless it's a trivial topic branch I
> would still typically make the final set of commits into a few logical steps.
>
> It costs
Squashing makes sense if you have a really ratty bunch of checkins with
work-in-progress checkins etc., but unless it's a trivial topic branch I
would still typically make the final set of commits into a few logical
steps.
It costs pretty much nothing to leave old topic branches around (but a few
Hello,
that, again, depends on your workflow. For one project, I
interactive-rebase my feature branches often, and merge them into master
when they are finished; after that, they can live forever in the repo, and
if the feature needs a fix or change, I can check them out. For another
project, I sq
Lets say I've got a topic branch. I've made a bunch of commits. It's messy. But
it's done.
As I understand it, best practice is to do a squash commit of the whole thing
onto the parent branch (develop or master, depending on workflow). And I can do
that.
What do I do with the leftover? I thoug
