Since January I've been insisting that we make atomic commits, but now I'm looking to switching to squashing them into one before merging. This makes it a lot easier to roll back a whole feature and not half way through it.
Plus, our graphs look ridiculous, I'm easily 5-10 times over the others, but it's not that I'm doing more work, I just commit more often.
We're using atomic commits since 2009 when we moved to git. However: we very often merge features with --no-ff to make it way easier to back them out at once if needed.
That way you get the best of both worlds (very easy archeology and very easy backing out of features)
Comments
Since January I've been insisting that we make atomic commits, but now I'm looking to switching to squashing them into one before merging. This makes it a lot easier to roll back a whole feature and not half way through it.
Plus, our graphs look ridiculous, I'm easily 5-10 times over the others, but it's not that I'm doing more work, I just commit more often.
We're using atomic commits since 2009 when we moved to git. However: we very often merge features with --no-ff to make it way easier to back them out at once if needed.
That way you get the best of both worlds (very easy archeology and very easy backing out of features)