Re: Branches are Scary

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Random832 <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:48:48 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > So I think the too detailed history is not important for these
> > branches, since they eventually are going to be deleted.  Therefore,
> > my advice is just not to squash there.
> 
> If they get merged, the branch may be deleted but the history
> stays forever, as part of the history graph of the branch it is
> merged into.

I see no problem with that, FWIW.

> I suppose you could squash (and rebase, so the parent branch can be
> fast-forwarded) before merging, so that the merge reflects the
> squashed history rather than the real history that existed on the
> branch (and then never push the squashed version to the feature
> branch).  Is that what you meant?

That's one possibility, yes.  Another produce diffs from the branch
and apply them to master (since you don't want the history, why do it
via Git?).  And I'm sure there's more.