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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In that case the feature is multiple MRs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment