On: Fix conflicts only once with Git rerere

[Kiro]

> This is ugly and pollutes your history graph across branches. After all, a merge should only occur to merge a finalized branch in.

I thought it was best practice to merge master into your branch now and then to keep it up to date and avoid one big messy merge at the end. What is the disadvantage exactly?

[bronson → Kiro]

He addresses this in the article: you then have multiple content-free merge commits in your history, making it more difficult to see where the branch actually begins (see "control merges polluting your history graph" in the artcle). Personally I don't think it's a big deal, but I understand if others take it seriously.

[Kiro → bronson]

Thanks. I read it but didn't see the big deal but putting it like that I can see why it would be. I still prefer doing it this way though.