The "squash and merge" trend with git bothers me, and perhaps I'm "doing it wrong" but it just doesn't capture what I need a commit history/git-blame for. Usually, I don't care what feature a line code was for. I want to know why a developer thought that was the right change. And to get that visibility I tend to make lots of commits, treating commits almost as out-of-band comments that don't clutter the file/repo.
When I think I'm done with a feature is exactly the time that metadata becomes relevant! Why would I want to lose it?
If anything, I wish ides would integrate git-blame more into my visualisation of a file
But there are so many people into it, that I feel I must be missing something obvious and it bothers me.
When I think I'm done with a feature is exactly the time that metadata becomes relevant! Why would I want to lose it?
If anything, I wish ides would integrate git-blame more into my visualisation of a file
But there are so many people into it, that I feel I must be missing something obvious and it bothers me.