sukhmel

I think it's because the article is trying to paint a picture that may not exactly fit the reality. But I didn't read it anyway, this comment thread looks more interesting

Yeah, some commit messages are very not good either

Largely yes, but also having it squashed requires better commit messages and comments to show what was done for what reason. But yes, bisect is the only reason I'm fine with squashing

Because less merge conflicts (we also rebase on top of master each time we commit)

If you mean to ask what that means, it's that for development you start a branch and either do everything in one commit, or do everything in several, but each time you git commit --amend so that a history is overwritten and in the end it is only one commit still

I mean, who cares, really, it's your desktop, after all

With rules like that I would expect people to split onto two groups: ones that learn one pattern and repeat it because it's a guaranteed result, and one that tries to find a counterexample to the rule they thought of at first. The fact that pigeons try different patterns kind of makes them more clever in my eyes.

But it's known that pigeons perform better than humans in Monty Hall problem, so they are really pretty smart when it comes to statistics, it seems

And here we are, encouraged by our technical leadership to always have a single commit per branch that is constantly amended. I even think squashing the branch is not too good, but this is a step up from that

world

Well, I meant it more in the sense that otherwise moving is usually hard work and is more or less no different for any country

Hm, maybe I was wrong, will edit then

To eastern Europe, for instance