Although I agree, I don't think merge commits are ugly. I think people coming from SVN/CVS where history is strictly linear have this obsession with keeping it that way.
In fact I find lots of developers just have an obsession with "clean" history, and fetishes for particular tools. It baffles me.
> I think people coming from SVN/CVS where history is strictly linear have this obsession with keeping it that way.
This has absolutely nothing to do with those, especially since they didn't even allow cleaning up histories. There is one very simple reason for why some developers prefer a linear history of master:
It makes debugging very easy.
With branch merges, especially when the branch lines cross, or the merge is an octopus merge, the complexity of the code necessitating inspection to find the root cause of a bug straight-up explodes. Meanwhile with a linear history it's not only easy, but automatable to find a commit that breaks a thing.
I do realize that you may not have had the displeasure yet to be in the situation to learn these things. Please feel free to consider yourself fortunate, but please also do try to understand that the things i just wrote are in fact simple observation of realities.
git bisect is a great tool for automating this sort of debugging in non-linear histories. That said I agree in general linear histories are much easier to deal with.
Linearized histories are much harder to find bugs in. You end up looking through revisions that never existed; in SVN you merge the remote history into your local history without it ever showing up as a merge. The explicit git approach tells you something much closer to the truth.
Your building strawmen does not help your credibility much, nor your attempt to convince me of your view. "Revisions that never existed" do exist, and if you put a rebase of a branch on master without verifying the rebase, then you may end up in a mess, but it's your fault. Code review is a thing that is done for a reason.
Frankly, i find your style of argument through implication, and through trying to disregard something because it doesn't fit your definition of truth to be much more condescending than anything i wrote before.
"Revision that were never built nor tested" is probably closer to the truth. Do you rewind through all your history and rebuild and retest every commit in a branch every time you rebase? Sure, they're similar, and you probably didn't mess up the merges. There's likely no subtle lingering bugs that QA's only going to catch weeks down the line. Probably.
> then you may end up in a mess, but it's your fault. Code review is a thing that is done for a reason.
Sure. But I've missed so many things in code reviews, had so many things in my own code missed in code reviews, and generally make mistakes and messes.
I do agree that simpler branch topology tend to be easier to reason about. But branches do have their advantages... and I've also found that preserving the original branch topology has helped me untangle merge mistakes that were missed, committed, and then only discovered a year or more later.
I hope that's all automated with short build+test iteration times! That'd easily eat a day for minor feature branches for me - I can't afford that kind of turnaround time.
GitLab CEO here, I completely agree with your observation that people coming from SVN have a hard time adjusting to non-linear history. At GitLab we recommend embracing it https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ But we also believe in the freedom to do what you want, see there is a version of GitLab with automatic rebasing to allow a clean linear history without having to rebase by hand https://about.gitlab.com/2014/12/22/gitlab-7-6-and-ci-5-3-re...
Although I agree, I don't think merge commits are ugly. I think people coming from SVN/CVS where history is strictly linear have this obsession with keeping it that way.
In fact I find lots of developers just have an obsession with "clean" history, and fetishes for particular tools. It baffles me.