<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>gwright</author><text>&amp;gt; why spend time on a ‘nice’ commit history in a (smallish) feature branch when you can squash merge later.&lt;p&gt;Several reasons:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    * facilitates much better code review discussions
    * enables use of git bisect to locate bugs
    * allows for informative commit messages associated with the changes
    * communicates clearly to future self about why changes were made&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>bogeholm</author><text>I ser it the other way around - why spend time on a ‘nice’ commit history in a (smallish) feature branch when you can squash merge later.&lt;p&gt;I prefer one commit to main per feature, a long with a good description on the GitHub PR.&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I’ll branch out from a feature branch for the occasional and infamous ‘get CI working’ round of 10 one-line commits though, to not make it too muddy.</text></item><item><author>dkarl</author><text>I think squash merges are a last resort heavy-handed tool for dealing with developers who refuse to clean up their commit history before merging. Most developers can do better by hand.&lt;p&gt;Git history should tell a simple, understandable story of each change. For example: 1) refactor existing code, 2) add feature. Or 1) add missing tests, 2) refactor existing code, 3) add feature.&lt;p&gt;But since you&amp;#x27;re working on the fly with imperfect knowledge, it doesn&amp;#x27;t happen in such neat steps. Refactorings and behavior changes end up interleaved in your raw git history, so you need to do a little bit of cleanup by hand in order to present a simple story in the commit log.&lt;p&gt;Of course if you have developers that don&amp;#x27;t do that and instead merge dozens of commits that just say wip, wip, wip, lol, fml, wip, wip, lol, yolo and you can&amp;#x27;t fire them or get them to change, then squash merges ftw.</text></item><item><author>recursive</author><text>Squash merges cut down the noise considerably.</text></item><item><author>jawns</author><text>I like how Atlassian puts it:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The golden rule of rebasing&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Once you understand what rebasing is, the most important thing to learn is when not to do it. The golden rule of git rebase is to never use it on public branches.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.atlassian.com&amp;#x2F;git&amp;#x2F;tutorials&amp;#x2F;merging-vs-rebasing#the-golden-rule-of-rebasing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.atlassian.com&amp;#x2F;git&amp;#x2F;tutorials&amp;#x2F;merging-vs-rebasing#...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;For me, even though rebasing comes with some trappings, I still greatly prefer it to the alternative, which is to have merge commits cluttering up the commit history.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Git rebase, what can go wrong</title><url>https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/11/06/rebasing-what-can-go-wrong-/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>marcandre</author><text>The classic example where this fails is when needing to revert something. An atomic commit for the migrations + some atomic commits for the implementation mean you can easily revert the implementation, and leave the migration intact (as should be) and add a reverse migration.</text><parent_chain><item><author>bogeholm</author><text>I ser it the other way around - why spend time on a ‘nice’ commit history in a (smallish) feature branch when you can squash merge later.&lt;p&gt;I prefer one commit to main per feature, a long with a good description on the GitHub PR.&lt;p&gt;Sometimes I’ll branch out from a feature branch for the occasional and infamous ‘get CI working’ round of 10 one-line commits though, to not make it too muddy.</text></item><item><author>dkarl</author><text>I think squash merges are a last resort heavy-handed tool for dealing with developers who refuse to clean up their commit history before merging. Most developers can do better by hand.&lt;p&gt;Git history should tell a simple, understandable story of each change. For example: 1) refactor existing code, 2) add feature. Or 1) add missing tests, 2) refactor existing code, 3) add feature.&lt;p&gt;But since you&amp;#x27;re working on the fly with imperfect knowledge, it doesn&amp;#x27;t happen in such neat steps. Refactorings and behavior changes end up interleaved in your raw git history, so you need to do a little bit of cleanup by hand in order to present a simple story in the commit log.&lt;p&gt;Of course if you have developers that don&amp;#x27;t do that and instead merge dozens of commits that just say wip, wip, wip, lol, fml, wip, wip, lol, yolo and you can&amp;#x27;t fire them or get them to change, then squash merges ftw.</text></item><item><author>recursive</author><text>Squash merges cut down the noise considerably.</text></item><item><author>jawns</author><text>I like how Atlassian puts it:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The golden rule of rebasing&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Once you understand what rebasing is, the most important thing to learn is when not to do it. The golden rule of git rebase is to never use it on public branches.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.atlassian.com&amp;#x2F;git&amp;#x2F;tutorials&amp;#x2F;merging-vs-rebasing#the-golden-rule-of-rebasing&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.atlassian.com&amp;#x2F;git&amp;#x2F;tutorials&amp;#x2F;merging-vs-rebasing#...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;For me, even though rebasing comes with some trappings, I still greatly prefer it to the alternative, which is to have merge commits cluttering up the commit history.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Git rebase, what can go wrong</title><url>https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/11/06/rebasing-what-can-go-wrong-/</url></story>