undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMaxBarraclough3y ago0 comments

  > If you have multiple long-lived branches, there's no technical
  > solution to preventing rot -- you must actively keep them in sync.

Rebasing isn't an alternative to this, it's just a different way of manually keeping in sync.

  > Regularly merging in main is the opposite of the proper solution.
  > Constantly rebasing on top of main is the proper solution.

Why? You've given no justification for your preference.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

couchand3y ago· 2 in thread

> Rebasing isn't an alternative to this, it's just a different way of manually keeping in sync.

I never said it was, I said it was the right way to keep them in sync.

> Why? You've given no justification for your preference.

I don't need to, the GGGGP said it perfectly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33705026

jacobsenscott3y ago

A rebase and a merge result in the same code. A rebase is more error prone though. Just because someone "feels" a merge isn't as safe doesn't make it so.

couchand3y ago

> A rebase and a merge result in the same code.

If done correctly, that's true, but it's beside the point. The reason to prefer one over the other is the failure mode.

> A rebase is more error prone though.

On what metric? In my experience, a merge is far, far more likely to silently introduce a production bug. I've never seen a rebase fail that way.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse