Hacker News Reader

That's the problem with all these guys obsessed with clean commit history.

What's wrong with having a clean commit history?

I think it's something people take too lightly.

Nothing. Just like there's nothing wrong with not having it clean.

Depends on the project. If I ran the Linux kernel, I'd insist on clear commits too.

Oh no no no. If you are handling something as important as the Linux kernel, you will absolutely want traceability over anything as trivial as clean history. You will impose signed commits and signed merges only... none of these FF stuff. If you want clean history on top of that, you will enforce that on original pull request not after the fact.

I'm responding to, "there's nothing wrong with not having it clean."

Yes, there often is. And I do enforce it on the original pull request.

You need that level of traceability on each commit specially on the Linux kernel, all our little projects sure, destroy the history, is fine.

> there's nothing wrong with not having it clean.

Untrue.

Well, as this submission demonstrates... you lose integrity and accountability

(which you never had in the first place, if you don't sign your commits)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com