For non-trivial reviews, when there are files with several changes, I tend to do the following in Git:

  1. Create local branch for the pr to review
  2. Squash if necessary to get everything in the one commit
  3. Soft reset, so all the changes are modifications in the working tree
  4. Go thru the modificiations “in situ” so to speak, so I get the entire context, with changes marked in the IDE, instead of just a few lines on either side.

Just curious if this is “a bit weird”, or something others do as well?

(ed: as others mentioned, a squash-merge and reset, or reset back without squashing, is the same, so step 2 isn’t necessary:))

  • amio@kbin.social
    11·
    10 months ago

    Squashing seems like you’d potentially lose out on info and have a harder time isolating the changes you’re looking through. I guess it depends on how much has been changed and whether some of the commits along the branch were more important than others.

    I also don’t think the reset is necessary, you should be able to diff the branch head against whatever you want.

    • Miaou
      2·
      10 months ago

      Sometimes the info lost is just a typo or a revert. I’d say heavily depends on the workflow of the people involved. Some like long history, some like rebasing, others, something in between. How you review those approaches changes a lot

      • amio@kbin.social
        2·
        10 months ago

        Sure, that’s fine. I use interactive rebase for “cleaning” a lot. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference for diffing (as you can diff any commit against any other) and doing it as a matter of routine sounds like it could skip potentially useful history.

        I mostly rebase but if a branch has things happen in a sequence that matters, I would merge it instead, for example.