What do you think is easier for the next guy?
1) three commits that do:
- a = 1;
- a = 7;
- a = 3;
or
2) one commit that says:
a = 3;
My point is that experimentation is slightly different from changing your mind about the whole implementation.
It is the same as writing your homework. You have a separate piece of paper where you make your experiments.
Not to mention that in practice, if this sort of history cleaning is forbidden then people will just attempt to not commit those first two lines, meaning that they are not getting the full benefit of version control.
When does the "next guy" ever look at revision history to see what's going on? I only ever look at the current state. If I want to see how it diverged from my last commit or the last commit before whatever milestone or release, I will diff the current version against that version ignoring every commit in between.
> When does the "next guy" ever look at revision history to see what's going on?
_All the time_. I read all the commits in the codebase I'm responsible for. I need to keep track of what people are doing and how the system is changing. This is also on top of the need for code review and ensuring each patch is correct.
I do that all the time with code that I don't understand. The commit message is the last resort of getting a human to talk to you when the comments are missing.
Not on most projects, no. We are on my current project and the review tool is based on tasks, not commits and can review multiple commits in a single session if they are all related to the same task. Regardless, I am only ever reviewing the end state.
- a = 1;
- a = 7;
- a = 3;
or
2) one commit that says:
a = 3;
My point is that experimentation is slightly different from changing your mind about the whole implementation. It is the same as writing your homework. You have a separate piece of paper where you make your experiments.