• reflectedodds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I feel the opposite, but for similar logic? Merge is the one that is cluttered up with other merges.

    With rebase you get A->B->C for the main branch, and D->E->F for the patch branch, and when submitting to main you get a nice A->B->C->D->E->F and you can find your faulty commit in the D->E->F section.

    For merge you end up with this nonsense of mixed commits and merge commits like A->D->B->B’->E->F->C->C’ where the ones with the apostrophe are merge commits. And worse, in a git lot there is no clear “D E F” so you don’t actually know if A, D or B came from the feature branch, you just know a branch was merged at commit B’. You’d have to try to demangle it by looking at authors and dates.

    The final code ought to look the same, but now if you’re debugging you can’t separate the feature patch from the main path code to see which part was at fault. I always rebase because it’s equivalent to checking out the latest changes and re-branching so I’m never behind and the patch is always a unique set of commits.

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      For merge you end up with this nonsense of mixed commits and merge commits like A->D->B->B’->E->F->C->C’ where the ones with the apostrophe are merge commits.

      Your notation does not make sense. You’re representing a multi-dimensional thing in one dimension. Of course it’s a mess if you do that.

      Your example is also missing a crucial fact required when reasoning about merges: The merge base.
      Typically a branch is “branched off” from some commit M. D’s and A’s parent would be M (though there could be any amount of commits between A and M). Since A is “on the main branch”, you can conclude that D is part of a “patch branch”. It’s quite clear if you don’t omit this fact.

      I also don’t understand why your example would have multiple merges.

      Here’s my example of a main branch with a patch branch; in 2D because merges can’t properly be represented in one dimension:

      M - A - B - C - C'
        \           /
          D - E - F
      

      The final code ought to look the same, but now if you’re debugging you can’t separate the feature patch from the main path code to see which part was at fault.

      If you use a feature branch workflow and your main branch is merged into, you typically want to use first-parent bisects. They’re much faster too.

      • reflectedodds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re right, I’m not representing the merge correctly. I was thinking of having multiple merges because for a long running patch branch you might merge main into the patch branch several times before merging the patch branch into main.

        I’m so used to rebasing I forgot there’s tools that correctly show all the branching and merges and things.

        Idk, I just like rebase’s behavior over merge.

        • Atemu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          The thing is, you can get your cake and eat it too. Rebase your feature branches while in development and then merge them to the main branch when they’re done.