On 1/11/19 5:29 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
I think, squashing commits when merging to master is a terrible idea because it makes tracking differences between develop and master difficult
When I look at the history of develop and master I expect to see: on develop - all the history which led me to each release. on master - the history of the releases - and nothing else. As it is now - I see in the master the detailed history with a lot small changes - same as the develop. It makes me reluctant to check small changes to develop knowing that all this transient unintrestesing and confusing history will be forever with us. I guess it comes down to this. If the master is just a copy of develop then what's the point of it? It's just one more thing to get out sync. Having a master only seems to make sense if it's a different thing - ie a history of releases. Robert Ramey