It is not a significant win when the bisecting session keeps landing me in your broken commits that I have to waste time evaluating and skipping.
Skipping a commit that doesn't build is trivial (especially if you're automating your bisects).
And splitting out fixups doesn’t save anything (let alone “half the size”), most commonly those fixups are just modifying content the previous commits were touching already, so you’re increasing the total diff size you have to evaluate.
If you feel the need to rebase to squash one-liner fixups into the commits they fix then that's a more subtle tradeoff and there are reasonable arguments. But squashing your whole PR for the sake of that is massive overkill, and the costs outweigh the benefits.
Skipping a commit that doesn't build is trivial (especially if you're automating your bisects).
A broken commit usually compiles, if you don’t even compile before committing you should go back to school.
If you feel the need to rebase to squash one-liner fixups into the commits they fix then that's a more subtle tradeoff and there are reasonable arguments. But squashing your whole PR for the sake of that
It would really have helped if you’d stated upfront that you can’t read.
Comments
Skipping a commit that doesn't build is trivial (especially if you're automating your bisects).
If you feel the need to rebase to squash one-liner fixups into the commits they fix then that's a more subtle tradeoff and there are reasonable arguments. But squashing your whole PR for the sake of that is massive overkill, and the costs outweigh the benefits.
A broken commit usually compiles, if you don’t even compile before committing you should go back to school.
It would really have helped if you’d stated upfront that you can’t read.