I used CVS and ClearCase before moving into Git, and it took me some time to adjust to the fact that the cost of branching in Git is much much less than ClearCase. And getting into the “distributed” mindset didn’t happen overnight.

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well the MRs in the teams I’ve been working in have been small and mostly atomic. They’re focused on solving only one thing.

    The team I’m currently working now in was bad at this before and often bundled way too many things in a single MR. It lead to overly long review processes and was error prone. It was too tough for the reviewer to get an understanding of what was going on.

    Since we made the habit to make smaller MRs we have had much less of those issues.

    • expr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If the MR is anything bigger than a completely trivial change in a file or 2, it most likely should be broken into multiple commits.

      A feature is not atomic. It has many parts that comprise the whole.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s excessively bureaucratic to the point of being useless in most cases.

          Hard and fast rules are generally bad and “squash everything” is pretty much a by definition hard and fast rule with the result being “I’m just not going to care that much about my commit messages.”

          • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            What are you on? Non-descriptive commit messages has never been any of our problems. All our commits that are pushed to the main branch are well written with clear issues linked to them.