• GigglyBobble@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I usually merge because I like to see commit history as it happened and because rebasing multiple commits with conflicts is more time-consuming than fixing it in one merge commit.

    I do rebase smaller changes though to reduce merge commit clutter and like interactive rebase to clean up my local commit mess before pushing.

    • kus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I create a new branch locally with git switch --create, pull everything from main, sacrifice a small squirrel, and run the project to make sure everything still works.

      If something doesn’t work or I can’t figure out how to resolve conflicts, I quietly switch back to my previous branch like nothing happened. That problem is for future me.

  • Naomikho@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Curious question: how many people work on one repo/module/service at your workplace or organization?

    I have been vomiting blood since day1 because of merge conflicts everywhere… I’m still trying to get better at git to make my life easier.

    • robot_vacuum@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      About 20 developers on one repo in my case, we use a rebase merge strategy with fairly small feature branches so I think that helps keep merge conflicts down. Another thing is our codebase is LARGE, so changes don’t often conflict.

      • Naomikho@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see… No one cares here and everyone just merges randomly. We have about 20 people working on one repo as well but a lot of times it’s the changes to the same file 😭