Same… My usual strategy: rebase, if conflict abort and merge, if no conflict continue; merge always with explicit commits to master / main (no fucking squashing); keep task references in branch names and commit messages.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Same, but typically I will just resolve the conflicts during the rebase. Makes for cleaner commit history. Merge commits are for combining multiple big unrelated pieces of work together, where rebasing would be too annoying (let's say 100s of commits each).

[–] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

In my cases I has to solve same code conflicts multiple times during a rebase, so I just don't try them when hit with conflicts.

I fail to see the benefits of "clean" git history

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In my cases I has to solve same code conflicts multiple times during a rebase, so I just don’t try them when hit with conflicts.

Yeah if you have two branches, both with a bunch of commits which all modify the same areas of code, and reordering the commits doesn't help, I can see how it is easier to merge.

I fail to see the benefits of “clean” git history

Well, if the commit history is clean and mostly linear, it's much easier to read, understand and review. git blame will also be much nicer which is really important for debugging big codebases. Of course it's a tradeoff, as usual.

[–] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Maybe I just haven't been exposed to bad examples. Never had any issues with blame and merge commits.