Rebase still means you have to resolve conflicts, but it can be worse because you may have to resolve conflicts across multiple commits that you’re rebasing on top of a conflict.
Agreed. If your commits are reasonably structured, rebasing is far more helpful.
Although these days I usually opt for one ball-of-mud commit while developing the code, which is always fairly trivial to rebase - only one commit, can’t have follow-up issues - and then I redo the commit structure from scratch as a part of preparing the code for the benefit of the reviewer.
Use a rebase.
Rebase still means you have to resolve conflicts, but it can be worse because you may have to resolve conflicts across multiple commits that you’re rebasing on top of a conflict.
Do you know our Lord and Savior rerere?
(Though I rather squash most of the times)
Damn, you know… Over 15 years as a dev using git and understanding it fairly well and I’m still learning about new, handy things.
In my experience this can be beneficial when committing and rebasing small and distinct changes.
Agreed. If your commits are reasonably structured, rebasing is far more helpful.
Although these days I usually opt for one ball-of-mud commit while developing the code, which is always fairly trivial to rebase - only one commit, can’t have follow-up issues - and then I redo the commit structure from scratch as a part of preparing the code for the benefit of the reviewer.