alt Hacker NewsValid, but you lose the lived history that comes with the audit log of it being actual review back and forth and CI runs vs lost to a developers machine and only a relic in the commit log. I can see both sides, though.
Replies
cush • today at 2:11 PM
People usually squash merge anyways
Can you elaborate about the practical value of having the history of back and forth, in a PR or even in the commit log? In my 20ish years of experience, I can’t recall a single instance where I’ve solved something thanks to having this work-in-progress state persisted in the repo history.
It’s exclusively been the other way around where having a smaller number of larger squished commits (post merge) that’s made the project be more maintainable.