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.
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.
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.