> rebasing creates a cleaner, more understandable history & state of the world without the clutter of merge commits
"Cleaner", for some definition of "clean". In this case, pretty, not accurate.
I just can't understand the draw of rebase based workflows. It seems to be an expression of a preference for aesthetics over accuracy. What is the point of source control, other than to reliably capture what actually happened in history? As soon as you start rewriting that, you compromise the main purpose.
Using merge commits preserves what you actually committed. If you ran tests before you committed, rewriting that commit invalidates that testing. If you need to go back and discover where a problem was introduced or what actually happened, with certainty, in a commit history, rebase undermines that, because it retroactively changes your commits.
It's like a huge portion of the industry is collectively engaging in a lie, so that our commit histories look prettier.
"Cleaner", for some definition of "clean". In this case, pretty, not accurate.
I just can't understand the draw of rebase based workflows. It seems to be an expression of a preference for aesthetics over accuracy. What is the point of source control, other than to reliably capture what actually happened in history? As soon as you start rewriting that, you compromise the main purpose.
Using merge commits preserves what you actually committed. If you ran tests before you committed, rewriting that commit invalidates that testing. If you need to go back and discover where a problem was introduced or what actually happened, with certainty, in a commit history, rebase undermines that, because it retroactively changes your commits.
It's like a huge portion of the industry is collectively engaging in a lie, so that our commit histories look prettier.