The delang is using merge instead of rebase/squash

[Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> It's not good either. Why would I want to look at a DAG when 
> the serie of event is strictly linear to begin with ?

Not sure what you mean here. The way it's presented is not a DAG.

> Yes, that's why rebasing makes thing clearer. Nobody care what 
> the master commit was when the work was started.

Sure, I'm not against rebasing. It's the squashing that's 
problematic.

> "Our source control is completely broken, but that's not a 
> problem because we developed 3rd party tools to work around the 
> brokenness"

That's fallacious.

> While I agree with you that things like bisecting are broken in 
> D, I don't see it as a reason to screw things up even more. I'm 
> not a big fan of "it's already broken, so we can break it even 
> more". This should, and can, be fixed.
>
> https://danluu.com/monorepo/
>
> Incidentally, I got a company contacting me last week willing 
> to pay me good money to help them transition toward these kind 
> of workflow.

I don't disagree with you, but this is a different discussion 
that's orthogonal to this one.

> Then it should have been 2 PR or more to begin with. Splitting 
> PR in smaller ones is a good practice in general,

You are changing the subject. I'll reply in another post with a 
different subject.